Podcasts about Electoral college

/// Support The Scalpel with Dr. Keith Rose - Experience a Healthier You with LifeWave Phototherapy Patches. These non-transdermal, drug-free patches capture infrared light emitted by your body, reflecting it at specific wavelengths. Visit https://lifewave.com/RoseMD to learn more or call 866.202.0065 ------------------------------------------------- This conversation touches on several important issues including the Electoral College system and concerns raised about John Corne. There is also discussion about food inequality, noting that poor people often struggle with accessing nutritious foods. Observations regarding higher obesity rates in wealthier countries like the United States compared to other nations. Additionally, implementing Congressional accountability and reduction of long-term lobbying influence. Personal reflections on social shaming versus holding individuals accountable are also mentioned, suggesting that accountability might be a healthier approach. Perhaps the most serious, predictions of potential societal upheaval ahead before year-end conclude the discussion with calls for addressing deeper issues. ------------------------------------------------- /// The Scalpel is proud to partner with Brickhouse Nutrition. Dr. Rose uses and highly recommends Field of Greens. Your purchase through this link supports The Scalpel Podcast. /// https://scalpeledge.com/brickhouse --- Connect with The Scalpel: Website: https://scalpeledge.com Email: KFR@scalpeledge.com TruthSocial: @scalpeledge Rumble: @TheScalpel X: @TheScalpelEdge Instagram: @TheScalpelPodcast

The discussion focused on various political and social issues, beginning with the Oberfeld decision on same-sex marriage and its parallels to Roe v. Wade. Jeffrey expressed skepticism about the left's political strategies, a sentiment echoed by Brian , who noted their past effectiveness. Ray raised concerns about the public's grasp of democracy and governance, while the group examined the actions of political figures like Lindsey Graham and their impact on constituents. The conversation also touched on current events and sports, reflecting a blend of interests. Voting dynamics in Virginia were a significant topic, with Jeffrey highlighting how Richmond's votes influenced election outcomes. Brian pointed out that a few regions were pivotal in determining results, while Ray criticized the low turnout of Trump voters during the midterms. The group debated the Electoral College's effectiveness and the implications of early voting, especially when negative candidate information surfaces post-vote. Local issues, such as a major traffic incident involving tractor trailers, were also discussed, alongside concerns about household debt in relation to social program voting.

Tune in to the Homie Helpline where Aaron is agonizing over whether to block his "hater homie" Jason—who went sour after losing his girl and whip—or try to save their 16-year friendship, even though Jason publicly clowned his skills. The hosts also break down the confusing Electoral College using analogies involving the World Series, buying bottle service sections at the club, and throwing a chaotic pizza party. [Edited by @iamdyre

Episode 513: Ballot With Butterfly Wings Part 1 of the 2020 Election This week host Dave Bledsoe got kicked out of an Andrew Cuomo election rally for constantly drunkenly screaming “Andy, let's go pick up some bitches!” (Again) On the show this week we turn the clock back twenty five years to the election that broke America. (We could have had a Lockbox!) Along the way we learn that Dave voted for Ralph Nader. (What an asshole) Then we dig into why we have an Electoral College. (Slavery.) From there we meet the men who were vying to lead the country into the 21st Century, one a boring politician and the other a dumbass fratboy with a drinking problem and a famous last name. From there we head to Florida for an explanation of why Florida is like it is. (Weird, filled with old people and alligators).  We discuss the election night faux pas that left the media with egg on its face and shit in their nickers. Then we take a listen to the recently discovered recording of Al Gore's retracted concession speech to George W Bush. Our Sponsor this week is Ballot Express, when you need to rig an election fast, you need Ballot Express.  We open with a painfully young Jon Stewart FINALLY calling the 2020 Election and close with Joel Goguen who has anger issues. Show Theme: Hypnostate Prelude to Common Sense The Show on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/whatthehellpodcast.bsky.social The Show on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/whatthehellpodcast/ The Show on Youtube:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjxP5ywpZ-O7qu_MFkLXQUQ The Show on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/whatthehellwereyouthinkingpod/ Our Discord Server: https://discord.gg/kHmmrjptrq Our Website: https://www.whatthehellpodcast.com Patreon:  https://www.patreon.com/Whatthehellpodcast The Show Line: 347 687 9601 Closing Music: https://youtu.be/sNYJ5ELTxBM?si=_hmhHHaK-cCTvf4M Buy Our Stuff: https://www.seltzerkings.com/shop Citations Needed: THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE POLLS; Poll Shows Either Candidate Within Reach of Victory https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/06/us/the-2000-campaign-the-polls-poll-shows-either-candidate-within-reach-of-victory.html The Florida Recount Of 2000: A Nightmare That Goes On Haunting https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/666812854/the-florida-recount-of-2000-a-nightmare-that-goes-on-haunting Contested presidential elections Bush v. Gore https://millercenter.org/contested-presidential-elections/bush-v-gore Election night has been a big media event since electric lights first announced the winner in 1892 https://theconversation.com/election-night-has-been-a-big-media-event-since-electric-lights-first-announced-the-winner-in-1892-148413 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today's sponsor is Piedmont Master Gardeners: Now accepting applications for their 2026 training class. Apply by December 1, 2025No study of American history or macroeconomics would leave out the impact played by the Great Crash of the New York Stock Exchange of 1929 which culminated on Black Tuesday, 96 years ago today. Stock prices had continued to increase throughout the Roaring Twenties but would generally decline until 1932, marking the era of the Great Depression. This edition of Charlottesville Community Engagement does not have the time or resources to delve into the causes of a financial panic that transformed the United States. I'm Sean Tubbs, and I think people should look back on their own time.In this edition:* Earlier this year, President Trump asked officials in Texas to redraw the Congressional maps to give the Republican Party an advantage in the 2026 midterms* Other states with Democratic majorities such as California have countered with redistricting proposals of their own* This week, the Virginia General Assembly is meeting in a special session to take a first step to amend the state's constitution to allow for a mid-Census redistricting* The podcast version features an audio version of yesterday's story on 530 East Main Street (read the story)Charlottesville Community Engagement is the work of one person and that one person sometimes neglects the marketing. You can help fill the gap by sharing with friends!First-shout: The new WTJU mobile app is here!WTJU is pleased to announce our brand new mobile app! You can download a version from either the Apple App Store or Google Play Store. Here are the links to both:* iPhone version* Android versionThe WTJU app is the place to tune in and listen live to WTJU, WXTJ, and Charlottesville Classical. Aside from the live stream, listen to archived shows, view recent songs, playlists, and program schedules, check out videos of live performances, stay up-to-date on WTJU's most recent news and articles, and more!Live chat with your favorite hosts, share stories with your friends, and tune into your community all in the palm of your hand.Virginia General Assembly takes up redistricting amendment during special sessionThe second presidency of Donald Trump has introduced many novel approaches to governance in the United States, including pressure on legislators in Texas to break from precedent to redraw Congressional districts in advance of the 2026 mid-term elections.Traditionally redistricting happens every ten years as mandated in Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. States can determine the method of how they draw districts but for many years Southern states were required to submit boundaries for review to ensure compliance with civil rights legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.The Republican Party currently holds a narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives with 219 members to 213 Democrats with three vacancies. One of those vacancies has been filled in a special election in Arizona won on September 23 by Democrat Adelita Grijalva but Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has so far refused to swear her in until he calls the full House of Representatives back into session.According to the Texas Tribune, redistricting in Texas is expected to create five additional safe seats for Republicans. The state's delegation of 38 Representatives consists of 25 Republicans, 12 Democrats, and one vacancy. Governor Greg Abbott signed the new Congressional map on August 29 with no need for voters to approve the measure.In response, California Governor Gavin Newsome, a Democrat, suggested legislation called the “Election Rigging Response Act” in direct response to the new maps in Texas, and a voter initiative to redraw maps in the nation's largest state mentions efforts underway by Republicans to redistrict in Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nebraska, and South Carolina. Proposition 50 is on the ballot on November 4.Last week, the Virginia Political Newsletter reported that Democrats who control a narrow majority in the General Assembly are seeking to follow California's lead. On Monday, the House of Delegates agreed to take up House Joint Resolution 6007 which would amend the Virginia Constitution to allow the General Assembly to make a one-time adjustment.The General Assembly is able to meet because a special session from 2024 was never technically adjourned. To allow consideration of the Constitutional amendment, the joint resolution that sets the rules for the special session had to be changed and agreed to by both the House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate.One adopted on February 22 of this year lists six items of acceptable business including memorials and resolutions commending people or businesses. A seventh was added to House Joint Resolution 6006 which was introduced by Delegate Charniele Herring (D-4) on October 24. This would allow a “joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia related to reapportionment or redistricting.”Both the House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate convened on Monday, October 27.As the debate in the House of Delegates began, Delegate Bobby Orrock (R-66) made a parliamentary inquiry.“My first inquiry would be given that special sessions have by their very nature only occurred for specific reasons. Ergo, we have resolutions controlling what can be considered during them. And subsequently, to my knowledge and experience here, they've never extended for more than a one year period.”Orrock said the 2024 Special Session was continued to allow progress toward adopting a budget that year. He said that had taken place and the stated reason for the special session was moot.The amendment itself was not made available until Tuesday afternoon. More on that later.Delegate Jay Leftwich (R-90) read from §30-13 of the Virginia Code which lays out what steps the Clerk of the House of Delegates has to take when publishing proposed amendments to the Constitution.“It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the House of Delegates shall have published all proposed amendments to the constitution for the distribution from his office and to the clerk of the circuit court of each county and the city two copies of the proposed amendments, one of which shall be posted at the front door of the courthouse and the other shall be made available for public inspection,” Leftwich said.Delegate Herring countered that that section of code predates the Virginia Constitution of 1971 which does not have those requirements. Leftwich continued to press on this note but Speaker of the House Don Scott ruled that his questions were not germane to the procedural issue.Delegate Lee Ware (R-72) said the move across the United States to redraw districts mid-Census to gain partisan advantage was a bad idea no matter what party was proposing it.“Just because a bad idea was proposed and even taken up by a few of our sister states such as North Carolina or California, is not a reason for Virginia to follow suit,” Ware said. “ For nearly two and a half centuries, the states have redistricted following the decennial census, responding to the population shifts both in our country and in the states.”A motion to amend HJ6006 passed 50 to 42.The House of Delegates currently only has 99 members due to the resignation of Todd Gilbert. Gilbert had been named as the U.S. Attorney for Western Virginia but lasted for less than a month. Former Albemarle Commonwealth's Attorney Robert Tracci was appointed to the position on an interim basis.Charlottesville Community Engagement is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Second-shout out: Cville Village seeks volunteersCan you drive a neighbor to a doctor's appointment? Change an overhead lightbulb, plant a flower, walk a dog for someone who is sick, visit someone who is lonely? If so, Cville Village needs you!Cville Village is a local 501c3 nonprofit organization loosely affiliated with a national network of Villages whose goals are to help seniors stay in their own homes as long as possible, and to build connections among them that diminish social isolation. Volunteers do small chores for, and have gatherings of, professors and schoolteachers, nurses and lawyers, aides and housekeepers. Time and chance come to all – a fall, an order not to drive, failing eyesight, a sudden stroke. They assist folks continue living at home, with a little help from their friends.Cville Village volunteers consult software that shows them who has requested a service and where they are located. Volunteers accept only the requests that fit their schedule and their skills.Volunteering for Cville Village can expand your circle of friends and shower you with thanks.To learn more, visit cvillevillage.org or attend one of their monthly Village “meet-ups” and see for yourself. To find out where and when the next meetup is, or to get more information and a volunteer application, email us at info@cvillevillage.org, or call them at (434) 218-3727.Virginia Senators pre-debate the amendment on TuesdayThe Virginia Senate took up the matter on Monday as well. Democrats have a 21 to 19 majority and were unable that day to suspend the rules to immediately consider an amendment to HJ6006. They had a second reading on Tuesday.The initial discussion of the Constitutional amendment took place during a portion of the meeting where Senators got to speak on matters of personal privilege. As with the House of Delegates, many inquiries from Republican legislators happened because the document itself was not yet available for review.Senator Bill Stanley (R–20) rose to remind his colleagues that the General Assembly passed a bipartisan Constitutional amendment to require that redistricting be conducted by a nonpartisan committee.“We listened to Virginians who were tired of the gerrymandering,” Stanley said. “In 2019, polls showed 70 percent of Virginians supported redistricting reform. Not 51 percent, not 55 percent, [but] 70 percent. The Mason Dixon poll showed 72% support. And crucially, over 60 percent of Republicans and Democrats alike supported this amendment. Equally when it came to a vote in the Commonwealth. This was not partisan.”Senator Mamie Locke (D-2) served on the bipartisan redistricting committee and reminded her colleagues that the process broke down in October 2021, as I reported at the time. The Virginia Supreme Court ended up appointing two special masters to draw the current boundaries.“There was constant gridlock and partisan roadblocks,” Locke said. “[Those] Were the reasons why the Supreme Court ended up drawing the lines because the commission ended up discussing things as tedious as which university could be trusted to provide unbiased data.”Locke said the proposal in Virginia would still have a bipartisan commission draw new maps after the 2030 Census and that voters in Virginia would still have to approve the amendment.Senator Scott Surovell (D-34) said the amendment is intended to step in when other branches of government are not exercising their Constitutional authority to provide checks and balances. He echoed Locke's comment that the redistricting commission would continue to exist.“There's no maps that have been drawn,” Surovell said. “There's no repeal of the constitutional amendment. The only thing that's on the table or will be on the table later this week is giving the General assembly the option to take further action in January to then give Virginia voters the option of protecting our country.”Senator Richard Stuart (R-25) said he thinks President Trump is doing a job of bringing manufacturing back to the country and dismissed Surovell's notion that democracy is at threat.“I'm not seeing any threat to democracy,” Stuart said. “I heard the word king, and I would remind the Senator that if he was a king, he would be beheaded for what he just said. But in this country, we enjoy free speech. We get to say what we want to say, and that is a valued right and privilege.”Senator Barbara Favola (D-40) said many of her constituents are concerned about cuts to federal programs due to the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill including threats to Medicaid. She explained why she supports her Democratic colleagues in Congress in the current state of things.“We are in a shutdown situation because the Democrats are standing up and saying we must extend the tax credits that are available on the health marketplace so individuals can afford their insurance,” Favola said. “Health insurance. This is not going unnoticed by the Virginians we represent.”Senator Mark Peake (R-22) said Republicans were entitled to govern how they want because they are in control of the federal government.“The current president won an overwhelming majority in the Electoral College and he won the popular vote by over 4 million or 5 million votes,” Peake said. “That is called democracy. That is what we have. And the Republicans won the Senate and they won the House of Congress. We will have another election next year and it will be time for the citizens to vote. But we are going under a democracy right now, and that's where we stand.”The points of personal privilege continued. Senator Schuyler VanValkenburg (D-72) said elections are a chance for citizens to weigh in on a presidency that started the process of mid-Census redistricting.“The key point is this,” VanValkenburg said. “The president's ideas are unpopular. He knows it. He's going to his ideological friends, he's asking them to carve up maps, and now the other side is upset because they're going to get called on it in elections.”The Senate adjourned soon afterward and will take up a third reading of HJ6006 today.Democrats file Constitutional Amendment for first referenceEarly discussions about a potential constitutional amendment in the House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate this week did not include a lot of details about how a mid-Census Congressional redistricting would take place.House Joint Resolution 6007 was filed with the Virginia Legislative Information System on Tuesday, October 28. As of this publication it is in the House Privileges and Elections Committee because the Senate has not yet given itself permission to take up the matter.The amendment would amend Article II, Section 6, of the Virginia Constitution to insert language into the second paragraph.Here is the full text, with italicized words indicating new language.The Commonwealth shall be reapportioned into electoral districts in accordance with this section and Section 6-A in the year 2021 and every ten years thereafter, except that the General Assembly shall be authorized to modify one or more congressional districts at any point following the adoption of a decennial reapportionment law, but prior to the next decennial census, in the event that any State of the United States of America conducts a redistricting of such state's congressional districts at any point following that state's adoption of a decennial reapportionment law for any purpose other than (i) the completion of the state's decennial redistricting in response to a federal census and reapportionment mandated by the Constitution of the United States and established in federal law or (ii) as ordered by any state or federal court to remedy an unlawful or unconstitutional district map.Take a look at the whole text here. I'll continue to provide updates. Stories you might also read for October 29, 2025* Charlottesville Ale Trail brings people to craft beverage makers, Jackson Shock, October 27, 2025* U.Va. leaders defend Justice Department deal in letter to Charlottesville legislators, Cecilia Mould and Ford McCracken, Cavalier Daily, October 28, 2025* Council agrees to purchase $6.2 million office building for low-barrier shelter, Sean Tubbs, C-Ville Weekly, October 29, 2025* Republican legislators slam Virginia redistricting proposal, Colby Johnson, WDBJ-7, October 27, 2025* Democrat Abigail Spanberger backs Virginia legislature's redistricting push, Steve People and Olivia Diaz, Associated Press, October 27, 2025* Va. Democrats roll out redistricting amendment to counter GOP map changes in other states, Markus Schmidt, October 28, 2025* Virginia Republicans Sue to Block Democratic Redistricting Push, Jen Rice, Democracy Docket, October 28, 2025* Redistricting session to resume Wednesday, WWBT, October 29, 2025Back to local again shortly after #947This is a unique version based on me wanting to go through the General Assembly recordings myself. I have a lot of local stories to get back to in the near future and I'm working extra this week to make sure I get back to them.They include:* Coverage of the discussion of 204 7th Street at the October 21, 2025 Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review* Coverage of last night's Albemarle Planning Commission public hearing on Attain on Fifth Street* Coverage of two discussions at last night's Greene County Board of SupervisorsAs expected, I work longer hours when I'm out of town on family business because I don't have the usual places to go. This is okay. Summer is over and it's time to hunker down and get to work. Today's end video is The Streets: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

Who's more of a “king”: Donald Trump, who ran for election three times, won the popular vote, the Electoral College, and all the swing states in 2024, or Joe Biden, who was appointed by Democratic Party elites in 2020 to be the nominee after losing the first three primaries and remained sequestered to his basement for the remainder of the campaign? Monarchs conduct lawfare. For all his talk in 2016 about “locking her up,” President Donald Trump did not direct his administration to investigate Hillary Clinton, however, Trump “had 91 indictments filed by federal, local, and state prosecutors in cahoots,” points out Victor Davis Hanson on today's edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In a Few Words.”  “Joe Biden, in 2020, had lost the first three caucuses or primaries. He was going nowhere. And then a group of insiders, politicos, donors, the media panicked because they knew that to nominate a Elizabeth Warren, a Pete Buttigieg, especially a Bernie Sanders, would destroy the Democratic ticket. “So, they cooked up this idea that Joe Biden from Scranton—even though they knew he was already cognitively challenged—could be a veneer, a wax effigy. And then they did not allow him to campaign because we know what happens when he campaigns, as we saw in 2024. “He sat in the basement under the pretext of COVID. He outsourced his campaign like a royal monarch to his underlings in the media. They got him elected. And then he, more or less, abdicated while on the job and let the hard Left, in this quid pro quo arrangement, run the country.”

Who's more of a “king”: Donald Trump, who ran for election three times, won the popular vote, the Electoral College, and all the swing states in 2024, or Joe Biden, who was appointed by Democratic Party elites in 2020 to be the nominee after losing the first three primaries and remained sequestered to his basement […]

Marc Cox talks with Ryan Wiggins about how the current shutdown has not weakened support for Donald Trump and how this political moment compares to past shutdowns. They break down expected GOP gains from redistricting Supreme Court rulings census adjustments and demographic shifts that could move dozens of House seats and reshape the Electoral College. The discussion includes Harry Enten's polling analysis and a look at whether the political center is moving to the right as voter blocs realign.

Why is it so hard to change the U.S. Constitution? Harvard historian Jill Lepore says the Constitution was intended to be amended but that we've all but abandoned the practice. That's had profound consequences, leaving us with vestigial antidemocratic provisions like the Electoral College, a malapportioned Senate and life tenure for Supreme Court justices. We talk to Lepore about why amendments are so rare and whether the Constitution can survive without them. Her new book is “We the People.” We also hear from Southern California congressman Pete Aguilar about President Trump's threats to cut “democrat” programs as the government shutdown continues, and how his caucus is responding. Guests: Jill Lepore, professor of American history, Harvard University; staff writer, The New Yorker - her new book is "We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution" Pete Aguilar, democratic representative for the 33rd Congressional District of California; chair of the U.S. House Democratic Caucus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

www.commsolutionsmn.com- With so many things going up in flames (figuratively and literally) these days, we start the show with some ideas to torch the sport of baseball's customs. We need to ease into the bad news today. In a case of the shifting political landscape in America, Vivek Ramaswami won an endorsement from the Teamster's Union in his bid to become Ohio's governor. Who's next... Pennsylvania? Things aren't looking good for the Dems in the near future and we're too happy to lay it out for you. Kamala Harris' new book is proof positive, as she single-handedly tears down most every Democrat that wants to run for something in the next 3 years. As we predicted months ago, Tim Walz has announced that he is running for a third term as governor of Minnesota. Can he really win? He is wildly unpopular in outstate Minnesota. National trends are toward the Republicans as we watch the unraveling of our society. The streets are less safe. There are billions of dollars of fraud being uncovered under the watch of the Walz administration. We went from a huge surplus to a huge deficit. As predicted, Ranked Choice Voting is ruining our electoral system. The Democratic Socialist candidate in Minneapolis is running a mayoral slate to take second and third votes away from the current mayor. We've got a government shutdown, but for how long. The Dems refuse to negotiate unless health insurance for illegals is included. The Republicans are winning the PR battle for now... but we'll see what happens. Things are looking good for the Republicans in the midterms. We'll see if that makes any difference. Lastly, we're in a war over speech. Even some "conservatives" have begun to talk about hate speech. We can never go down that road. Speech has to remain free... likewise, if you're Jimmy Kimmel, you're not being censored. You're just being fake news.

In Part 1 of a two-part podcast series, Mama B sits down with a dear, long-time family friend to get his viewpoint on a few things they greatly disagree about and a few things they totally see eye to eye on. While Mama B is a blue leaning Independent, this friend went from being a Democrat for (Bill) Clinton in the 1990's to telling Mama B he is now “more MAGA than most MAGA people.” By the way, he was at the January 6th Insurrection and in this podcast episode he will tell listeners why he was there and what he did and didn't see, what he did and didn't do. The constitution and the Electoral College are briefly mentioned and the enmeshed topics of the killing of Charlie Kirk and free speech are also discussed. You won't want to miss listening to this episode!

We start with our Laureate MIMI GERMAN's usual brilliant poetry.   We hear from the dis-incarnated Jeffrey Epstein about his money laundering with Donald Trump & V. Putin.   We further discuss the nitty gritty of the Second Amendment and the perils of gun ownership with the great DOROTHY REIK.   We here from former Mormon BRENT MILLER.   Our co-convenor MIKE HERSH introduces the great JENNIE GAGE and her post-Mormon Denim Revolution.   From Jennie we hear a fascinating account of how she broke away from her fundamentalist past.   We later hear from JONATHAN BEARD about the idea of progressives moving to Red States to organize & shift the Electoral College.   From Green Party Presidential candidate HOWIE HAWKINS who discusses the Trump-Putin alliance.   Howie then introduces SVITLANA ROMANKO who explains from Ukraine the hellish conditions in which green activists are trying to shift the nation from fossil/nulear fuel addiction to clean, green wind and solar.   From MICKEY LEADER we get questions about geothermal energy & its possible role in rebuilding Ukraine.   California solar activist PAUL NEWMAN asks (in Ukrainian) about the role of hydro-power in the war zone.   Safe energy advocate HEIDI VERTHALLER lauds the campaigning of Germany's Petra Kelly & elicits a comparison to Svitlana.   Nationally-renowned health research JOE MANGANO discusses the need to do a national study of the health impacts of atomic radiation from nuclear reactors.   Our erstwhile engineer STEVE CARUSO asks about the role of Exxon-Mobil in supporting oil/gas exploration with Morgan-Stanley & Putin.   The great KARL GROSSMAN then discusses Trump's utter decimation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission & any semblance of actual safety guarantees at US reactors.    

Discover how 55 delegates created the U.S. Constitution in just 88 days during the summer of 1787. Constitutional scholar Gordon Lloyd breaks down the Philadelphia Convention using his acclaimed "four-act drama" framework, revealing the behind-the-scenes negotiations, heated debates, and crucial compromises that shaped American government.What You'll Learn:✓ How Madison's Virginia Plan clashed with the New Jersey Plan✓ The Connecticut Compromise that balanced state vs. popular representation✓ Why slavery debates nearly derailed the entire convention✓ How the Electoral College and presidency were actually created✓ The dramatic final moments and Franklin's famous "rising sun" speechKey Topics Covered:Virginia Plan vs New Jersey Plan conflictConnecticut Compromise and Great CompromiseThree-Fifths Compromise and 1808 slave trade agreementCreation of the Electoral College systemPresidential powers and impeachment provisionsCommittee of Detail and Committee of StyleBill of Rights controversy and non-signersFeatured Experts:Gordon Lloyd (Pepperdine University, Ashbrook Center Senior Fellow)Chris Burkett (Ashland University, Ashbrook Scholar Program Director)Hosted by Jeff Sikkenga (Ashbrook Center Executive Director)Related Resources:The American Founding website: theamericanfounding.orgAshbrook's 50 Core American Documents: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/product/50-core-american-documents-cdc/Madison's Constitutional Convention notes (Ashbrook edition): https://teachingamericanhistory.org/product/debates-in-the-federal-convention-of-1787/

This Day in Legal History: Final Draft of the US Constitution EngrossedOn September 16, 1787, the final draft of the United States Constitution was signed by the Constitutional Convention delegates in Philadelphia. Although the official signing date was September 17, the 16th was the day the finished document was ordered to be engrossed — meaning it was written in its final, formal script on parchment. This step marked the culmination of four months of intense debate, compromise, and drafting by delegates from twelve of the thirteen original states. The Constitution replaced the failing Articles of Confederation and established a stronger federal government with distinct executive, legislative, and judicial branches.Debates on September 16 included last-minute details such as how amendments could be proposed and the extent of federal power over the militia. The delegates had already resolved key issues like the Great Compromise (creating a bicameral legislature), the Electoral College, and the Three-Fifths Compromise regarding the counting of enslaved individuals for representation. One of the final acts on the 16th was the approval of the letter that would accompany the Constitution to Congress, urging ratification by the states.Though the Constitution would still need to be ratified by nine of the thirteen states, the events of September 16 set the stage for the formal adoption the following day. The engrossed copy would be signed on September 17 and later become the foundation of American law and governance.Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor and daughter of ex-FBI Director James Comey, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over her sudden termination in July. She alleges that her firing was politically motivated, stemming from her father's adversarial relationship with Donald Trump. The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, names both the Justice Department and the Executive Office of the President as defendants and claims Comey was given no reason for her dismissal. According to the suit, Comey had received strong performance evaluations, including one in April signed by Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton.Comey had played key roles in high-profile prosecutions, including the sex trafficking case against Ghislaine Maxwell and the recent conviction of Sean “Diddy” Combs on prostitution-related charges. She was fired just two weeks after the Combs trial ended. The email she received from DOJ human resources cited presidential authority under Article II but offered no specific explanation. When she asked Clayton about the decision, he allegedly said, “All I can say is it came from Washington.”The lawsuit challenges the administration's ability to remove career, non-political prosecutors and raises concerns about politicization of the Justice Department, particularly in cases involving Trump or his allies.Former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey sues Trump administration over firing | ReutersElon Musk's company X Corp has settled a trademark dispute with legal marketing firm X Social Media over the use of the “X” name. The case, filed in Florida federal court in October 2023, stemmed from Musk's rebranding of Twitter to X, which X Social Media claimed caused consumer confusion and financial harm. As part of the resolution, both parties asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be reopened. The founder of X Social Media, Jacob Malherbe, confirmed the settlement and announced the company will now operate under the name Mass Tort Ad Agency.The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and X Corp did not issue a comment. The lawsuit was one of several Musk's company has faced over the “X” name, which is widely used and trademarked by numerous businesses, including Microsoft and Meta. In its defense, X Corp argued that many companies have long coexisted with similar “X” trademarks and accused X Social Media of trying to exploit the situation for profit. This settlement follows another earlier agreement in which X Corp resolved a separate trademark claim brought by the firm Multiply.The dismissal brings closure to a case that raised questions about branding overlap and trademark dilution in an increasingly crowded digital landscape.Musk's X Corp settles mass-tort ad agency's trademark lawsuit over 'X' name | ReutersTwo U.S. law firms, Bartlit Beck and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, are requesting $85 million in legal fees after securing a $700 million settlement with Google over alleged antitrust violations tied to its Play Store. The settlement, which is still pending approval by U.S. District Judge James Donato, resolves claims that Google overcharged Android users by restricting app distribution and imposing excessive in-app transaction fees. Under the agreement, $630 million will go to a consumer fund, with another $70 million allocated to a state-managed fund shared by all 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.Consumers are expected to receive a minimum of $2, with additional compensation based on their Play Store spending from August 2016 to September 2023. Google also agreed to ease restrictions on app developers, allowing them to inform users about alternative payment methods and enabling easier direct app downloads from the web. The fee request amounts to approximately 13.5% of the consumer settlement fund, and the firms say they invested nearly 100,000 hours over more than three years.While Judge Donato previously raised concerns about the scope of the deal, no U.S. state has objected to the fee request so far. Google has not admitted any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, and users will still have the opportunity to raise objections before final approval.Lawyers behind $700 million Google settlement ask for $85 million fee award | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Norway's recent national election, which effectively became a referendum on one of the last remaining wealth taxes in Europe. Despite having a $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund and no immediate fiscal need for a wealth tax, Norwegians narrowly backed the Labour Party, signaling that voters still care about fairness in taxation—even when the government doesn't need the money. In a global landscape where wealth taxes have mostly disappeared, this was a small but potent victory for the principle of equity.I argued that this matters beyond Norway. Wealth taxes used to be common across Europe, but most were abandoned due to fears of capital flight and elite lobbying. That Norway held the line—even amid billionaire threats and a populist surge—suggests that wealth taxes can survive politically when fairness becomes a central electoral value. It also underscores that symbolic wins can shape broader policy debates by proving what's administratively and politically possible.In the U.S., we lack Norway's fiscal cushion, yet we've persistently avoided taxing wealth. Policymakers often justify this inaction with fears about capital mobility, but I question whether we're really more vulnerable to capital flight than Norway is. The deeper issue is political will. Americans have long treated wealth taxation as politically toxic and bureaucratically unworkable, but that may be more a product of narrative than necessity.Norway's voters showed that fairness can be enough to win—even narrowly. But I emphasize that such policies require ongoing public defense; they don't sustain themselves. If we continue dodging the issue in the U.S., we'll be doing so not from a place of strength, but from a place of illusion. If Norway can defend taxing wealth despite not needing to, we have no excuse not to even try.Norway Wealth Tax Victory Shows Visible Fairness Still Matters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

What happens when two friends with opposing political views tackle one of the most divisive news stories of the week? This episode opens with John and Jay addressing the Charlie Kirk shooting, navigating their political differences with remarkable mutual respect and humanity.Despite their contrasting perspectives, the hosts find common ground in condemning political violence while maintaining their individual viewpoints. Their conversation reveals how modern discourse has deteriorated into finger-pointing and "gotchas" rather than substantive dialogue. They explore how internet anonymity, algorithmic echo chambers, and deep web subcultures contribute to real-world violence, delivering a sobering look at our fractured political landscape.In a moment of unexpected unity, both hosts passionately criticize the Electoral College system, demonstrating how Americans across the political spectrum often share fundamental concerns about democratic processes despite their policy differences.After the heavy political discussion, the episode transforms into a therapeutic musical showcase. The hosts escape into the world of electronic music, sharing their favorite techno tracks featuring artists like R3hab, Tiesto, Selena Gomez, and even the outrageous Gunther. Their genuine enthusiasm for these beats showcases how music transcends political boundaries and brings joy regardless of ideological differences.This episode perfectly captures the essence of friendship across political divides – the ability to disagree respectfully while finding connection through shared cultural experiences and basic human values. As they remind us at the close: "Be human. Be cool. Everybody love everybody."Ready to hear what happens when real conversations bridge political divides? Press play and join John and Jay for an episode that moves from tragedy to musical catharsis with honesty and heart.Send us a text message and let us know how awesome we are! (Click the link)!Support the show'Beavis and Butt-head' Cover art created by Joe Crawford

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comJill is a writer and scholar. She's a professor of American history at Harvard, a professor of law at Harvard Law, and a staff writer at The New Yorker. She's also the host of the podcast “X-Man: The Elon Musk Origin Story.” Her many books include These Truths: A History of the United States (which I reviewed for the NYT in 2017) and her new one, We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution — out in a few days; pre-order now.For two clips of our convo — on FDR's efforts to bypass the Constitution, and the worst amendment we've had — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised by public school teachers near Worcester; dad a WWII vet; her struggles with Catholicism as a teen (and my fundamentalism then); joining ROTC; the origins of the Constitution; the Enlightenment; Locke; Montesquieu; the lame Articles of Confederation; the 1776 declaration; Paine's Common Sense; Madison; Jefferson; Hamilton; Adams; New England town meetings; state constitutional conventions; little known conventions by women and blacks; the big convention in Philly and its secrecy; the slave trade; the Three-Fifths Clause; amendment provisions; worries over mob rule; the Electoral College; jury duty; property requirements for voting; the Jacksonian Era; Tocqueville; the Civil War; Woodrow Wilson; the direct election of senators; James Montgomery Beck (“Mr Constitution”); FDR's court-packing plan; Eleanor's activism; Prohibition and its repeal; the Warren Court; Scalia; executive orders under Trump; and gauging the intent of the Founders.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: John Ellis on Trump's mental health, Michael Wolff on Epstein, Karen Hao on artificial intelligence, Katie Herzog on drinking your way sober, Michel Paradis on Eisenhower, Charles Murray on religion, David Ignatius on the Trump effect globally, and Arthur Brooks on the science of happiness. As always, please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

America has always had a sadistic streak. From the very beginning, this so-called land of liberty was built on slavery and genocide. Yes, the Founding Fathers were less “philosopher kings” and more “sweaty men in wigs who owned human beings and thought democracy was something best kept away from women, the poor, and anyone who wasn't them.” Fast-forward 250 years, and the far-right is still running the same playbook: cruelty as ideology. Immigrants? Cage them. LGBTQ+ kids? Target them. Women? Control them. The planet? Burn it. What Republicans call “policy” is really just sadism with a tax cut. Our Constitution was carefully crafted by white elites terrified of ordinary people voting. Thanks to the Electoral College and the Senate, minority rule is baked into the system. In fact, the last two Republican presidents to win the White House actually lost the popular vote. Democracy? More like demo-crazy. Joining us this week to build a real democracy from the ashes of Trump's MAGA dumpster fire is Osita Nwanevu, a contributing editor for The New Republic, a columnist for The Guardian, and the author of the new book The Right of the People: Democracy and the Case for a New American Founding.  If America truly wants to live up to its mythology, it needs to finally make good on the promise of liberty and justice—for all. EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION: September 29 4pm ET – Join the Gaslit Nation Book Club for a discussion of Harriet Tubman: The Moses of Her People by Sarah Bradford.  Minnesota Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other, available on Patreon.  Vermont Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other, available on Patreon.  Arizona-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to connect, available on Patreon.  Indiana-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to join, available on Patreon.  Florida-based listeners are going strong meeting in person. Be sure to join their Signal group, available on Patreon.  Have you taken Gaslit Nation's HyperNormalization Survey Yet? Gaslit Nation Salons take place Mondays 4pm ET over Zoom and the first ~40 minutes are recorded and shared on Patreon.com/Gaslit for our community  

America isn't a direct democracy — and Chris Cuomo wants to explain why that distinction matters. In this episode, he breaks down the difference between a constitutional republic and majority rule, showing how the structure of the Senate and Electoral College give disproportionate power to smaller states. He highlights how one-third of the U.S. population controls half the Senate and explores how this imbalance shapes our politics. Chris examines how America's system was originally designed to protect minorities but now enables fringe interests to dominate national debate. From social media algorithms to gerrymandering, he argues the few often overpower the concerns of the many. Along the way, he critiques hot-take culture, recalls the fight over Obamacare, and questions how both left- and right-wing populist movements exploit discontent. Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday: https://linktr.ee/cuomoproject Join Chris Ad-Free On Substack: http://thechriscuomoproject.substack.com Support our sponsors: Call American Financing today to find out how customers are saving an avg of $800/mo. 866-889-4244 or visit http://www.AmericanFinancing.net/Cuomo. NMLS 182334, nmlsconsumeraccess.org. 866-889-4244. AmericanFinancing.net/Cuomo Head to https://tryfum.com/products/zero-crisp-mint to start with Zero. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is considering legislation that would ban local governments from contracting with federal agencies to detain immigrants for civil violations, potentially shutting down three detention facilities in New Mexico. Republican legislators who toured the Otero County Immigration Detention Facility found conditions to be humane and well-managed, contradicting claims used to justify closure.• Shutting down detention centers would eliminate hundreds of well-paying jobs in rural communities • Previous attempts by states to limit federal immigration enforcement have failed in court• Governor opposes Trump's deployment of National Guard for immigration enforcement• The Governor's Mansion now features pickleball courts open to the public by reservation• Trump signed an executive order targeting cashless bail systems nationwide• New Mexico's violent crime rate has skyrocketed since implementing bail reforms in 2016• Voter registration trends show Republicans gaining ground in key swing states• Electoral College projections suggest Democrats may face disadvantages by 2030Like and subscribe on our YouTube channel. Your comments help our algorithms, and we truly appreciate your support!Website: https://www.nodoubtaboutitpodcast.com/Twitter: @nodoubtpodcastFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/NoDoubtAboutItPod/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/markronchettinm/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ%3D%3D

In this episode of The P.A.S. Report, Professor Giordano exposes how the loudest defenders of “democracy” are the same voices working to dismantle the very institutions that protect our Republic. From the Senate to the Supreme Court and the Electoral College, every safeguard designed by the Founding Fathers is under attack in the name of power. Nick explains why these institutions exist, the dangers of tearing them down, and how today's calls to abolish or reinvent them threaten the future of the United States. Episode Highlights Why the Founders intentionally created an undemocratic Senate to protect the rights of states and prevent mob rule How packing the Supreme Court for ideological gain would destroy its independence and moral authority The truth about the Electoral College, why it ensures balance among the states, and why DC statehood is nothing more than a political power grab

I've hosted this show - for what is just six weeks shy of three years - on AmericaOne Radio. To let you behind the curtain a little, I and its owner wanted to be candid about its current and future.In essence, Jeremy reached out to me last week to tell me he was going to close up shop. AmericaOne has been a labor of love/passion for Jeremy and less about making money. In fact, it's cost him. For that reason and with the general fatigue many are feeling after last November, and because he has a full-time job and other ventures he'd like to focus on, AmericaOne is likely to disappear.Sort of. There's the potential for new ownership and that may bring changes - but good changes - to the outlet. So much is up in the air, but I felt it right to let AOR's and TRS's listeners know everything that's on the table. With that, onto show material:The open theft of our right to cast votes for 'regime change'Donald Trump knows enough about U.S. history to know Presidents and their party usually lose the House in the next election cycle, and both his and generic polls show that to be likely in 2026, as well. To offset that possibility, of course, he and Vice President J.D. Vance are working the phones and executive branch airline budget to get red states to mid-decade gerrymander. MAGA memes, of course, misinform their voting bloc howling indignation at states like Delaware and Vermont gerrymander (when in fact, they have only one House seat), adding in states like Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, which have two. Uhm, how do you afford House representation to 40% of those states fairly with only two House seats, math wizzes? Context is everything, and that's what I'm here. Hi, Democrats; this is where you bring up (as Texas Rep. James Talarico has) that no Republican voted with Democrats on a House measure to make gerrymandering illegal and that the Trump-packed Supreme Court didn't address it when it could, either. Or, that uncapping The House, by the way would address their howling about these smaller blue states lacking representation for those poor-poor minorities of Republicans. That, incidentally, contributes to fixing the Electoral College, SO USE THIS MOMENT TO DO SOMETHING.Now, Trump wants to eliminate mail-in voting (the Constitution prohibits him from doing so but when's that stopped him, before?) It's par for the course, though: Republicans are all about making it more difficult for law-abiding legal voters to vote. High turnouts almost always mean "GOP losses." So they have to suppress. Even 'hero' Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia Secretary of State who stood up to Trump in 2020, whiffed when given the chance to speak against Trump's latest attempt to rig voting. Patricia Murphy at the Atlanta Journal Constitution, however, wrote, that there's a movement afoot to make it as easy to vote as it is to order your lunch on Door Dash. That's right: using your mobile device. Murphy informs that The Mobile Voting Project's Bradley Tusk's recent TED Talk illuminates the argument for what would be a massive expansion of voter participation opportunity. We can predict where the pushback will come from, though, right?

President Trump's anticipated meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska was either significant progress or world-ending, depending on which side of the media you tuned in to. Was there a meaning behind the B-2 bomber that flew overhead as Trump and Putin walked the red carpet? Glenn's chief researcher, Jason Buttrill, joins Glenn and Stu to discuss the type of leader Putin is and what President Trump has to navigate in his efforts to bring peace to Russia and Ukraine. Glenn gives a history lesson on the last time a country was forced to give up its land in exchange for peace. Peace requires sacrifice, and Glenn outlines why sometimes securing peace is more important than holding on to land. MSNBC is undergoing a rebrand, dropping the NBC and becoming MSNOW. Glenn and Stu discuss how MSNBC has made itself worse than it already was. A recent New York Times opinion piece called for abolishing the Senate, ending the Electoral College, and packing the Supreme Court. Glenn explains how our system operates and how the Left refuses to participate in it. PragerU CEO Marissa Streit joins to explain how PragerU aims to create entertaining educational content that teaches children about America's history, both the good and the bad. Is PragerU becoming the new PBS?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Jim and Greg for the Monday edition of the 3 Martini Lunch as they have fun with some campaign news out of Pennsylvania and then serve up three major political martinis: President Trump's efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war, MSNBC rebranding to MS NOW, and a left-wing columnist calling to scrap the Constitution so progressives can enact more of their agenda.Before the martinis, they react to Republican Pennsylvania State Treasurer Stacy Garrity announcing her run for governor in 2026. The name may be spelled differently, but Jim Geraghty is hilariously bracing to hear his name a lot over the coming year.In the first martini, Jim breaks down the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, weighing both the positive and negative results. They also examine what today's Washington meeting between Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and European leaders could mean for future peace negotiations.Next, they react to MSNBC rebranding to MS NOW. Jim suspects NBC News will be glad to no longer be synonymous with the rage fest on the cable channel once this process is complete. Greg and Jim are both severely underwhelmed by the new name.Finally, they shake their heads as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat interviews Osita Nwanevu, a columnist for The New Republic, who basically wants to scrap the Constitution and start over because we're not enough of a democracy. The guest is especially infuriated over the existence of the U.S. Senate and the Electoral College and wants to pack the U.S. Supreme Court and add a several new states...you know...to save democracy.Please visit our great sponsors:Keep your skin looking and acting younger for longer. Get 15% off OneSkin with the code 3ML at https://www.oneskin.co/Support your health with Dose Daily.  Save 25% on your first month when you subscribe at https://DoseDaily.co/3ML or enter code 3ML at checkout. Stop putting off those doctors' appointments and go to https://zocdoc.com/3ML to find and instantly book a top-rated doctor today. 

Should we be defending American democracy if it never really existed? That's the controversial thesis at the heart of Osita Nwanevu's new book, The Right of the People. What America needs, the Baltimore-based Nigerian-born Nwanevu argues, is a radical reinvention of its political system. Nwanevu dismantles liberal pieties about traditional American institutions, arguing that the founders deliberately created an anti-democratic republic designed to prevent majority rule. While conservatives celebrate this fact, progressives remain trapped defending a dysfunctional system that structurally disadvantages them. From the anti-majoritarian Electoral College to the archaic Senate's rural bias, America's "democratic" institutions consistently thwart popular will. To realize real 21st century democracy, he argues, requires extending direct democratic power into both the workplace and the economy. When Amazon workers can vote on American foreign policy but have zero say in their company's decisions, something is fundamentally broken. His radical solution? A new American founding that finally delivers on democracy's promise and guarantees real rights to the real American people. 1. America Was Designed to Be Anti-Democratic The founders intentionally created a constitutional republic to prevent majority rule, not enable it. Unlike progressives who argue the founders secretly wanted democracy, Nwanevu agrees with conservatives that the system was designed to thwart popular will—he just thinks that's a problem to fix, not celebrate.2. Democrats Are Defending a System That Hates Them While Republicans benefit from anti-majoritarian institutions like the Electoral College and Senate, Democrats inexplicably defend these same structures that make it nearly impossible for them to govern effectively. It's political masochism disguised as constitutional reverence.3. Democracy Must Extend Beyond Politics Into Economics True democracy means workers having a say in workplace decisions, not just voting for politicians. When Amazon employees can vote on foreign policy but have zero input on company decisions that directly affect their lives, the system is fundamentally broken.4. The Left Needs Bolder Vision, Not Institutional Defense Trump wins because he promises to disrupt a system people distrust, while Democrats offer tepid defenses of broken institutions. The left must offer transformative change, not restoration of "norms" that never served ordinary people.5. Extreme Wealth Inequality Kills Democracy When the world's richest man can donate $260 million and essentially buy a government position to fire thousands of federal workers, democracy becomes impossible. No political system can survive trillionaires—it's nothing more than an oligarchy with a voting theater.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Buckle up, patriots—@intheMatrixxx and @shadygrooove are tearing into Season 7, Episode 149, “Democrats 20 to 30 HOUSE SEATS for Illegal Aliens In The Census; Pesky Q Proofs,” airing August 7, 2025, at 12:05 PM Eastern! The MG Show's truth-seeking dynamos dive headfirst into the explosive claim that Democrats gained 20 to 30 House seats by counting illegal aliens in the 2020 Census, skewing representation and Electoral College votes. They'll unpack posts on X amplifying this narrative, spotlighting Stephen Miller's bold assertions, while critically dissecting the mainstream's dismissal of these claims as overstated. Expect razor-sharp analysis of “Pesky Q Proofs,” with Jeff and Shannon connecting the dots on live intel drops, questioning the establishment's census practices, and exposing potential manipulations that dilute American citizens' voices. The truth is learned, never told—tune in at noon-0-five Eastern LIVE to stand with Trump, armed with the Constitution as your weapon! Trump, illegal immigration, Census, House seats, Q proofs, @intheMatrixxx, @shadygrooove, America First, Electoral College, Stephen Miller mgshow_s7e149_census_house_seats_q_proofs Tune in weekdays at 12pm ET / 9am PST, hosted by @InTheMatrixxx and @Shadygrooove. Catch up on-demand on https://rumble.com/mgshow or via your favorite podcast platform. Where to Watch & Listen Live on https://rumble.com/mgshow https://mgshow.link/redstate X: https://x.com/inthematrixxx Backup: https://kick.com/mgshow PODCASTS: Available on PodBean, Apple, Pandora, and Amazon Music. Search for "MG Show" to listen. Engage with Us Join the conversation on https://t.me/mgshowchannel and participate in live voice chats at https://t.me/MGShow. Social & Support Follow us on X: @intheMatrixxx https://x.com/inthematrixxx @ShadyGrooove https://x.com/shadygrooove Support the show: Fundraiser: https://givesendgo.com/helpmgshow Donate: https://mg.show/support Merch: https://merch.mg.show MyPillow Special: Use code MGSHOW at https://mypillow.com/mgshow for savings! Wanna send crypto? Bitcoin: bc1qtl2mftxzv8cxnzenmpav6t72a95yudtkq9dsuf Ethereum: 0xA11f0d2A68193cC57FAF9787F6Db1d3c98cf0b4D ADA: addr1q9z3urhje7jp2g85m3d4avfegrxapdhp726qpcf7czekeuayrlwx4lrzcfxzvupnlqqjjfl0rw08z0fmgzdk7z4zzgnqujqzsf XLM: GAWJ55N3QFYPFA2IC6HBEQ3OTGJGDG6OMY6RHP4ZIDFJLQPEUS5RAMO7 LTC: ltc1qapwe55ljayyav8hgg2f9dx2y0dxy73u0tya0pu All Links Find everything on https://linktr.ee/mgshow

Ever wonder where your federal tax dollars go? Spoiler: it's probably not your neighborhood. In this episode, we follow the money and it leads straight to states that take more than they give, complain the loudest, and somehow still get to make the rules.IntroWho's paying the bills?Who's making the rules?The cost of compromiseWhat needs to change?So what do we do?ClosingMusic by Loghan LongoriaFollow us on instagram: Sergio Novoa and My Limited View PodResources & ReferencesUSAFacts: Which States Contribute the Most and Least to Federal RevenueRockefeller Institute of Government: Giving or Getting? Balance of Payments by StateMarketWatch: Why Are Red States Fighting Federal Budget Cuts?The Conversation: Blue States Send Billions More to Washington Than They Get BackPew Charitable Trusts: Federal Spending in the States Interactive ToolRockefeller Institute of Government: https://rockinst.org/issue-area/giving-or-gettingUSAFacts – Federal Revenue vs Spending by State: https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-most-and-least-to-federal-revenueThe Conversation – Tax Contributions by State: https://theconversation.com/blue-state-bailouts-some-states-like-new-york-send-billions-more-to-federal-government-than-they-get-back-137950Brookings Institution – The Wealth of Cities vs Rural America: https://www.brookings.edu/research/city-and-metropolitan-income-inequality-data-update/Pew Research – Federal Spending by State: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2022/federal-spending-in-the-statesFederal Taxes: Who Pays in vs. Who Gets Back Rockefeller Institute of Government – rockinst.orgPew Charitable Trusts – pewtrusts.orgMedicaid Expansion and Costs Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) – kff.orgCenter on Budget and Policy Priorities – cbpp.orgGun Trafficking Into Blue States ATF Firearms Trace Data – atf.govChicago PD Crime Gun Reports – home.chicagopolice.orgEPA Good Neighbor Rule – epa.govCourt filings via PacerMonitor – pacermonitor.comGuttmacher Institute – guttmacher.orgPlanned Parenthood – plannedparenthood.orgU.S. Constitution – archives.govElectoral College Info – archives.gov/electoral-collegeNational Popular Vote Interstate Compact – nationalpopularvote.comLibrary of Congress – loc.govBrookings Institution – brookings.eduAnnenberg Public Policy Center – annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org

Guest Michael Maibach, Founder and Director of the Center for the Electoral College, joins to discuss the battle between representation, and the National Popular Vote. How does the Electoral College preserve our election system, and what would a National Popular Vote do to society?  Let's be grateful for our current leadership compared to the previous administration. Discussion of Kamala failing on the book tour campaign, and Biden slurring through another major speech. 

This week on the Mark Levin Show, On Monday's Mark Levin Show, Europe didn't do a anything to take on Hamas after the October 7th attacks, instead they push Israel to surrender. Europe is historically tied to evils like the Holocaust, Nazism, Stalinism, and Marxism, now conquered by radical Islamists through open borders. The Biden administration, Democrats, left-wing forces in media/academia, and isolationists undermined Israel, who could have ended the war sooner without interference. What's happening in Gaza is that people are going without food. Why? Israel isn't starving them. This is a last desperate move by Hamas to save itself by slaughtering its own people. Later, the Allied bombing of Dresden in February 1945 was a terror campaign targeting civilians in a non-military city, resulting in massive casualties via firestorms from British and U.S. air raids. The modern hypocrisy from U.K. and French leaders, who pressure Israel over Gaza—blaming it for starvation caused by Hamas, demanding ceasefires, and threatening Palestinian state recognition—while ignoring their own countries' declines due to open borders and radical Islamists, and applying impossible standards to Israel that no nation, including the U.S, would accept for itself. Zohran Mamdani recently returned from a lavish, expensive wedding in Uganda featuring a walled estate and armed guards, funded by capitalists rather than the government. He portrays himself as the victim while yelling at Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams. Don't believe a word Mamdani says, he would defund the police and disarm the citizen. The 2020 U.S. Census contained significant errors, overcounting populations in blue states, while undercounting in red states leading to misallocated congressional seats that favored Democrats and cost Republicans about five seats. This widened Trump's Electoral College victory margin and tightened House control more than warranted. In response, Texas Republicans are holding a special legislative session to redraw congressional districts, potentially gaining up to five more GOP seats in the 2026 midterms. The move echoes a 2003 gerrymander, with Democrats decrying it as hypocritical given their own history of similar tactics in blue states, but it's necessary since Democrats don't play fair. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, the 2020 U.S. Census contained significant errors, overcounting populations in blue states, while undercounting in red states leading to misallocated congressional seats that favored Democrats and cost Republicans about five seats. This widened Trump's Electoral College victory margin and tightened House control more than warranted. In response, Texas Republicans are holding a special legislative session to redraw congressional districts, potentially gaining up to five more GOP seats in the 2026 midterms. The move echoes a 2003 gerrymander, with Democrats decrying it as hypocritical given their own history of similar tactics in blue states, but it's necessary since Democrats don't play fair. Also, a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine would carve up Israel's indigenous lands and holy sites to create a terrorist state aimed at destroying Israel. Arab nations reject Palestinians while forcing concessions on Israel. Imagine what would have happened if President Trump wasn't President – the destruction of Israel by terrorists, Marxists, European quislings, the UN, and anti-Semitic elements worldwide, including in the Democrat Party, media, academia, podcasters, influencers, and isolationists. Later, death penalty practices in red states are superior to those in blue states, as the executions of these monstrous criminals are warranted. Afterward, On Power explains that history is filled with tyrants seizing power under the guise of liberty, such as in Marxist regimes where promises of liberation through class warfare and collectivism lead to genocidal police states. Abraham Lincoln highlighted how "liberty" means different things to different people—individual freedom for some, exploitation of others for the rest—resulting in incompatible concepts labeled as liberty and tyranny. Similarly, "democracy," loosely defined as non-autocratic government, is misused by the power-hungry to deceive, as George Orwell noted in Politics and the English Language, where political words are perverted dishonestly, and regimes claim to be democratic for praise while fearing a fixed definition. Finally, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin calls in to announce a proposal to rescind the 2009 Obama-era Endangerment Finding. This finding declared that greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to public health and welfare, enabling extensive regulations such as the Clean Power Plan and costing over $1 trillion in compliance.  The proposed rescission aims to eliminate burdensome rules, saving small businesses at least $170 billion and reducing regulatory overreach on emissions standards for vehicles and power plants. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

-- On the Show: -- David hosts a Substack Live with Tim MIller -- Donald Trump now claims he cut ties with Jeffrey Epstein for stealing staff from Mar-a-Lago, not for any crimes -- Ghislaine Maxwell offers to testify before Congress in exchange for clemency while Donald Trump panics -- Multiple trade deals announced by Donald Trump remain unsigned and lack confirmation from partner countries -- Donald Trump contradicts his past statements and rambles incoherently during a press gaggle -- Donald Trump attacks comedians and senators in Truth Social posts demanding loyalty and obedience -- The Electoral College undermines democracy and continues to skew elections in favor of less populous states -- On the Bonus Show: FBI has Epstein recording missing minute, Hawley's stock trading ban upsets White House, American Eagle under fire over Sydney Sweeney ad, and much more... ⚠️ Ground News: Get 40% OFF their unlimited access Vantage plan at https://ground.news/pakman

Join #McConnellCenter Director Dr. Gary Gregg for a discussion regarding the importance of The Federalist by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Links to resources referenced in the episode:  Purchase a copy of Reflection and Choice: The Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, and the Debate that Defined America.  Download our Reflection and Choice podcast series and accompanying reading guide.  About the host: An award-winning political science teacher and expert on the U.S. presidency, Gregg has written or edited several books, including Reflection and Choice and Securing Democracy: Why We Have an Electoral College.  About the podcast: We all know we need to read more and there are literally millions of books on shelves with new ones printed every day. How do we sort through all the possibilities to find the book that is just right for us now? Well, the McConnell Center is bringing authors and experts to inspire us to read impactful and entertaining books that might be on our shelves or in our e-readers, but which we haven't yet picked up. We hope you learn a lot in the following podcast and we hope you might be inspired to pick up one or more of the books we are highlighting this year at the University of Louisville's McConnell Center. Stay Connected Visit us at McConnellcenter.org Subscribe to our newsletter  Facebook: @mcconnellcenter Instagram: @ulmcenter  Twitter: @ULmCenter This podcast is a production of the McConnell Center 

About the Lecture: The American Constitution is the world's oldest. It was designed by our Founders to withstand the storms of faction, geographic expansion, war – and even Civil War. The Founders studied history. They knew that democracies always fail. Plato writes in The Republic that “democracies always become tyrannies.” How is it that our 235-year-old Constitution still governs our land? In a phrase - “checks and balances”. The Constitution has internal mechanisms that, while imperfect, were created because men are quite imperfect. Just as sailor must tack back and forth to reach his destination, the Constitution forces us to share and exchange the leavers of power to keep the ship of state from floundering and on course. When someone says, “the Electoral College is un-democratic”, a fair reply may be - “Of course it is. We are a republic, not a democracy.” Even so, America is much more democratic than most all republics in choosing a head of state. Was Mr. Churchill's name on the ballots of all Englishmen? Was Mr. Trudeau's name on the ballots of all Canadians? Decidedly not. We will explore why virtually all sustained republics embrace “checks and balances” and a “two-step” electoral processes - not simple majority rule. There is nothing simple about self-government About the Speaker: Mr. Michael C. Maibach is a seasoned professional in global business diplomacy. From 2003 to 2012, he was the President & CEO of the European-American Business Council after serving for 18 years as the Vice President of Global Government Affairs for the Intel Corporation. Today, he is a Trustee and Managing Director of the James Wilson Institute, and a Distinguished Fellow on American Federalism at Save Our States. Mr. Maibach has earned M.A. degrees from Northern Illinois University, Georgetown University, Ashland University, and The Institute of World Politics, where he also serves as a member of our Honorary Board of Advisors. He frequently speaks at schools and civic groups to discuss and defend the Founders' Constitution and their Electoral College design.

The first presidential elections excluded some states, chose electors without the popular vote, and delayed the selection of the president after members of Congress fail to show up to count the votes. Blog ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://blog.AmRevPodcast.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ includes a complete transcript, as well as more resources related to this week's episode. Book Recommendation of the Week: The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789, by Joseph Ellis Online Recommendation of the Week: 1789 President of the United States, Electoral College https://elections.lib.tufts.edu/catalog/zp38wf06k Join American Revolution Podcast on Reddit: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.reddit.com/r/AmRevPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Ask your American Revolution Podcast questions on Quora: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://amrevpod.quora.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow the podcast on X ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@AmRevPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join the podcast mail list: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mailchi.mp/d3445a9cd244/american-revolution-podcast-by-michael-troy ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ARP T-shirts and other merch: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://merch.amrevpodcast.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support this podcast on Patreon ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/AmRevPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or via PayPal ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://paypal.me/AmRevPodcast⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Donald Bacon is an American politician and retired military officer who has served as the U.S. representative for Nebraska's 2nd congressional district since 2017. During his 29 years in the United States Air Force, he commanded wings at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, and Offutt Air Force Base south of Omaha, Nebraska, before retiring as a brigadier general in 2014. Bacon has been described as a maverick for his opposition to the isolationist and protectionist policies proposed by Donald Trump, who has derided him as a "rebel." Bacon is one of the strongest pro-Ukraine voices in US politics, with a clear and moral stance on the war. In April 2022, the Russian Federation sanctioned and banned Bacon in retaliation for U.S. participation in sanctions against pro-war members of the Russian Duma. In 2023, Bacon signed a letter advocating for President Joe Biden to give F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine.Following the highly contentious White House meeting between President Trump and Volodymir Zelenskyy in February 2025, Bacon described the summit as "a bad day for America's foreign policy." In an interview with CNN, he described Trump's stance on Russia as "too conciliatory" and amounting to "walking away" from America's legacy as the leader of the free world. Bacon did not join congressional Republicans who sided with the Trump campaign's attempts to overturn the 2020 US presidential election. He voted to certify both Arizona's and Pennsylvania's votes in the 2021 Electoral College vote count. Bacon was one of 35 Republicans who joined Democrats in voting to approve legislation to establish the January 6 commission to investigate the Capitol attack.----------Links: https://x.com/repdonbacon?lang=en https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Baconhttps://bacon.house.gov/https://www.congress.gov/member/don-bacon/B001298https://www.facebook.com/RepDonBacon/https://www.instagram.com/repdonbacon/ ----------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------TRUSTED CHARITIES ON THE GROUND:Save Ukrainehttps://www.saveukraineua.org/Superhumans - Hospital for war traumashttps://superhumans.com/en/UNBROKEN - Treatment. Prosthesis. Rehabilitation for Ukrainians in Ukrainehttps://unbroken.org.ua/Come Back Alivehttps://savelife.in.ua/en/Chefs For Ukraine - World Central Kitchenhttps://wck.org/relief/activation-chefs-for-ukraineUNITED24 - An initiative of President Zelenskyyhttps://u24.gov.ua/Serhiy Prytula Charity Foundationhttps://prytulafoundation.orgNGO “Herojam Slava”https://heroiamslava.org/kharpp - Reconstruction project supporting communities in Kharkiv and Przemyślhttps://kharpp.com/NOR DOG Animal Rescuehttps://www.nor-dog.org/home/----------PLATFORMS:Twitter: https://twitter.com/CurtainSiliconInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/siliconcurtain/Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/4thRZj6NO7y93zG11JMtqmLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/finkjonathan/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------Welcome to the Silicon Curtain podcast. Please like and subscribe if you like the content we produce. It will really help to increase the popularity of our content in YouTube's algorithm. Our material is now being made available on popular podcasting platforms as well, such as Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

Hillsdale College Radio General Manager and Radio Free Hillsdale Hour host Scot Bertram fills in for Jim on Thursday's 3 Martini Lunch. Join Scot and Greg as they assess the Supreme Court's ruling on Planned Parenthood and your tax dollars, a radical government overhaul proposal from a Democratic congressman, and whether the Democrats will mimic Mamdani in the 2026 midterms and beyond.First, they discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 decision allowing South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from where it spends Medicaid dollars. Scot and Greg react to the decision, explain why it makes sense, and note the incredibly biased way these politically-charged rulings are covered in the media. Next, they shake their heads as Illinois Rep. Sean Casten proposes adding 12 at-large U.S. Senate seat decided in a national popular vote, which would also add 12 votes to the Electoral College. He also wants to increase the U.S. House of Representatives by 250 seats, and "rebalance" the Supreme Court by creating a "13-judge multi-circuit panel" that would decide any cases where the U.S. government or a federal agency is a party.Finally, they spotlight the Democrats who avoided Zohran Mamdani's extremism before the election but now rush to align with him. Scot and Greg explore whether Mamdani's far-left agenda will become a blueprint for Democrats heading into the 2026 midterms and beyond.Please visit our great sponsors:It's free, online, and easy to start—no strings attached. Enroll in American Foreign Policy  with Hillsdale College. Visit https://Hillsdale.edu/MartiniFatty15 is on a mission to help you live healthier, longer.  Get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription Starter Kit by going to https://Fatty15.com/3ML and use code 3ML at checkout.

It's the end of the line for Donald Trump as the Electoral College finally meets and casts their votes for Joe Biden. While Trump vows to fight on, his MAGA warriors are targeting the GOP for failing to overturn the election in Trump's favor. We also look back at the previous five weeks and pick out the highs and lows in Trump's clown car coup attempt. Plus, Vanity Fair's Emily Jane Fox, author of Born Trump, joins Michael to discuss the future of the President's offspring. Also, make sure to check out Mea Culpa: The Election Essays for the definitive political document of 2020. Fifteen chapters of raw and honest political writings on Donald Trump from the man who knows him best. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M5VKQ6T/ For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices It's the end of the line for Donald Trump as the Electoral College finally meets and casts their votes for Joe Biden. While Trump vows to fight on, his MAGA warriors are targeting the GOP for failing to overturn the election in Trump's favor. We also look back at the previous five weeks and pick out the highs and lows in Trump's clown car coup attempt. Plus, Vanity Fair's Emily Jane Fox, author of Born Trump, joins Michael to discuss the future of the President's offspring. Also, make sure to check out Mea Culpa: The Election Essays for the definitive political document of 2020. Fifteen chapters of raw and honest political writings on Donald Trump from the man who knows him best. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M5VKQ6T/ For cool Mea Culpa gear, check out www.meaculpapodcast.com/merch To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What is the Electoral College and how does it preserve states' rights and protect the voices of our citizens? We often see messages from media pundits and activists calling for “national popular vote” reforms and pleas to “count all votes.” What would those changes mean to our country and to freedoms we cherish? With Linda to discuss these often-asked questions is Michael Maibach, Policy Advisor for The American Civil Rights Union and Distinguished Fellow for Save Our States. Michael provides historically grounded and constitutionally sound insights into how the Electoral College protects minority rights, prevents regional domination, and ensures that small and large states have a voice in presidential elections. The Electoral College provides a stabilizing force to ensure states' rights and citizen voices are protected, which is why every American will benefit from understanding the importance of this process. Listen today for information and action items to guide you as you seek to become an educated and engaged citizen. Copyright 2025, Prosperity 101, LLC __________________________________________________________________ For information about our online course and other resources visit: https://prosperity101.com To order a copy of Prosperity 101 – Job Security Through Business Prosperity® by Linda J. Hansen, click here: https://prosperity101.com/products/ Become a Prosperity Partner: https://prosperity101.com/partner-contribution/ If you would like to be an episode sponsor, please contact us directly at https://prosperity101.com. You can also support this podcast by engaging with our Strategic Partners using the promo codes listed below. Be free to work and free to hire by joining RedBalloon, America's #1 non-woke job board and talent connector. Use Promo Code P101 or go to RedBalloon.work/p101 to join Red Balloon and support Prosperity 101®. Connect with other Kingdom minded business owners by joining the US Christian Chamber of Commerce. Support both organizations by mentioning Prosperity 101, LLC or using code P101 to join. https://uschristianchamber.com Mother Nature's Trading Company®, providing natural products for your health, all Powered by Cranology®. Use this link to explore Buy One Get One Free product options and special discounts: https://mntc.shop/prosperity101/ Unite for impact by joining Christian Employers Alliance at www.ChristianEmployersAlliance.org and use Promo Code P101. Support Pro-Life Payments and help save babies with every swipe. Visit www.prolifepayments.com/life/p101 for more information. Maximize your podcast by contacting Podcast Town. Contact them today: https://podcasttown.zohothrive.com/affiliateportal/podcasttown/login Thank you to all our guests, listeners, Prosperity Partners, and Strategic Partners. You are appreciated!   The opinions expressed by guests on this podcast do not necessarily represent those held or promoted by Linda J. Hansen or Prosperity 101, LLC.  

On the sixty-second episode of the Constitutionalist, Ben, Shane, and Matthew discuss the Mayflower Compact, and its implications for American political life as one of the nation's earliest constitutional compacts. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast co-hosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

Roman Buhler never thought he'd see the day where the 'Left' would so actively try to undermine this nation through the packing of the Supreme Court. A constitutional amendment, presented with a Democrat helping the coalition, to say the the Supreme Court will consist with 9 justices. Roman looks behind the left wing members of Congress; involving the pro-abortion crowd, the teachers unions, folks who want to take away 2nd Amendment rights, the quota civil rights crowd wanting racial quotas, and Wall Street to empower regulators to enrich Green New Deal policies, and the most dangerous of all the Democrat election lawyers that want to get rid of the Electoral College. Young voters are key. Roman packs his coalition with the Gen Z folks that are strongly engaged to join Roman's coalition to initiate this new constitutional amendment. "We need another revolution", Roman said. In Trump's 2017 inauguration, Donald Trump said "it's time to transfer power out of Washington and back to the states and the people." "Laws must be made by elected officials" he said, "not by administrative decree. That would be the NEXT amendment."Check out MadisonCoalition.org or 202-255-5000“Keep 9” Is the Solution ~ Let's Stop Dem Court Packing!!!on the GrassRoots TruthCast with Gene ValentinoORIGINAL MEDIA SOURCE(S):‣ Originally Recorded on May 13, 2025‣ GrassRoots TruthCast: Season 2, Episode 284‣ Image courtesy of: GeneValentino.com➡️ Join the Conversation: https://GeneValentino.com➡️ WMXI Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/NewsRadio981➡️ More WMXI Interviews: https://genevalentino.com/wmxi-interviews/➡️ More GrassRoots TruthCast Episodes: https://genevalentino.com/grassroots-truthcast-with-gene-valentino/➡️ More Broadcasts with Gene as the Guest: https://genevalentino.com/america-beyond-the-noise/ ➡️ More About Gene Valentino: https://genevalentino.com/about-gene-valentino/

On the sixty-first episode, Shane and Ben are joined by Joseph Natali, a Ph.D. student at Baylor University dissertating on the constitutionalism of bureaucracy and how Presidents succeed or fail in exercising control over the executive branch. We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

On the sixtieth episode, Matthew and Ben are joined by Shilo Brooks, Executive Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, to discuss his immensely popular course "The Art of Statesmanship and the Political Life." We want to hear from you! Constitutionalistpod@gmail.com The Constitutionalist is proud to be sponsored by the Jack Miller Center for Teaching America's Founding Principles and History. For the last twenty years, JMC has been working to preserve and promote that tradition through a variety of programs at the college and K-12 levels. Through their American Political Tradition Project, JMC has partnered with more than 1,000 scholars at over 300 college campuses across the country, especially through their annual Summer Institutes for graduate students and recent PhDs. The Jack Miller Center is also working with thousands of K-12 educators across the country to help them better understand America's founding principles and history and teach them effectively, to better educate the next generation of citizens. JMC has provided thousands of hours of professional development for teachers all over the country, reaching millions of students with improved civic learning. If you care about American education and civic responsibility, you'll want to check out their work, which focuses on reorienting our institutions of learning around America's founding principles. To learn more or get involved, visit jackmillercenter.org. The Constitutionalist is a podcast cohosted by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, the RW Morrison Professor of Political Science at Baylor University and Founder and Editor of The Constitutionalist Blog, Shane Leary, a graduate student at Baylor University, and Dr. Matthew K. Reising, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Princeton University. Each week, they discuss political news in light of its constitutional implications, and explore a unique constitutional topic, ranging from the thoughts and experiences of America's founders and statesmen, historical episodes, and the broader philosophic ideas that influence the American experiment in government.

Today we'll be rebroadcasting our conversation with David Horowitz, the influential author, speaker, and conservative activist who passed away 4/29/25 at the age of 86 after a long battle with cancer. Best known for his memoir Radical Son and for boldly confronting radical ideologies on college campuses, Horowitz spent a lifetime navigating—and ultimately rejecting—the political extremes of the American Left. From his early days among Marxists and Black Panthers to his fierce advocacy for free speech and Western values through the David Horowitz Freedom Center, his voice remained unapologetically clear. His journey from revolutionary to Reagan Republican left a permanent mark on America's culture wars. [Original airdate: 2/16/23] TODAY'S GUEST: David Horowitz is founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the bestselling author of several books, including Radical Son, The Black Book Of The American Left, Dark Agenda: The War To Destroy Christian America, and his brand new book, FINAL BATTLE: THE NEXT ELECTION COULD BE THE LAST. Final Battle, by David Horowitz, exposes the real threat that Democrats pose to freedom. The rise of socialism and critical race theory, coupled with threats to the Electoral College and Senate, an independent judiciary, and the integrity of the electoral system, now threaten to destroy the traditions that bring Americans together — the heart of our democracy. ...Americans now speak in different and antagonistic political languages, and the two parties are so polarized that the American way of life itself is at risk.

Today we'll be rebroadcasting our conversation with David Horowitz, the influential author, speaker, and conservative activist who passed away 4/29/25 at the age of 86 after a long battle with cancer. Best known for his memoir Radical Son and for boldly confronting radical ideologies on college campuses, Horowitz spent a lifetime navigating—and ultimately rejecting—the political extremes of the American Left. From his early days among Marxists and Black Panthers to his fierce advocacy for free speech and Western values through the David Horowitz Freedom Center, his voice remained unapologetically clear. His journey from revolutionary to Reagan Republican left a permanent mark on America's culture wars. [Original airdate: 2/16/23] TODAY'S GUEST: David Horowitz is founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the bestselling author of several books, including Radical Son, The Black Book Of The American Left, Dark Agenda: The War To Destroy Christian America, and his brand new book, FINAL BATTLE: THE NEXT ELECTION COULD BE THE LAST. Final Battle, by David Horowitz, exposes the real threat that Democrats pose to freedom. The rise of socialism and critical race theory, coupled with threats to the Electoral College and Senate, an independent judiciary, and the integrity of the electoral system, now threaten to destroy the traditions that bring Americans together — the heart of our democracy. ...Americans now speak in different and antagonistic political languages, and the two parties are so polarized that the American way of life itself is at risk.

In this episode of America's Founding Series, Professor Giordano explores the life and legacy of James Wilson, one of the most influential yet overlooked Founding Fathers. As one of only six men to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Wilson played a pivotal role in shaping the core structures of American government—including the Electoral College, the independent judiciary, and the concept of a single, energetic executive. Drawing from his Enlightenment roots and deep belief in popular sovereignty, Wilson's vision helped define the Constitution as a government of the people. His warnings, insights, and contributions are just as relevant today as they were in 1787. Episode Highlights: How James Wilson's ideas shaped the Electoral College, the presidency, and judicial independence Why Wilson opposed the Bill of Rights—and what it reveals about constitutional interpretation The forgotten story of a Founder who helped design America's legal system, then died broke and in obscurity

If you thought SignalGate was bad, wait until you hear about ArchiveGate. Trump illegally fired the National Archivist—the first president in U.S. history to do so since the position was established in the 1930s. This wasn't just about a change in leadership; it was revenge on the Archivist's office alerting the DOJ about Trump's stolen classified documents, which were stored around Mar-a-Lago, a known hub for foreign spies.  But it gets worse. Marco Rubio, who is currently the Trump/Putin lackey Secretary of State, is also serving as the acting National Archivist. This unprecedented conflict of interest raises serious concerns. Rubio is juggling three major roles—Secretary of State, head of USAID, and now, National Archivist. This gives him the power to greenlight the destruction of government records, including his own, without any checks and balances. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) plays a vital role in maintaining the integrity of our political system, overseeing the administration of the Electoral College, preserving government records, and ensuring transparency. Now, with Rubio in control, we face the potential destruction of key documents and rewriting of history that could threaten our democracy. It's another avenue for Trump to lead a coup to stay in power, like his failed “fake electors” scheme to try to overturn the 2020 election.  As one listener points out in her commentary, edited for clarity, shared in a recent Gaslit Nation salon, we must stay vigilant of these corrupt moves. ArchiveGate is part of a broader plan to hold on to power. But remember, the people are the ultimate force. Together, we can stop this.    Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!   Show Notes:   Reject Hypernormalization: Gaslit Nation Launches New Project, Survey https://www.gaslitnationpod.com/survey-reject-hypernormalization   Trump's firing of the U.S. government archivist is far worse than it might seem: The National Archives and Records Administration does more than just preserve documents: It's the scaffolding of the American political system. https://www.fastcompany.com/91277620/trump-firing-national-archivist-colleen-shogan   House Dems cite ‘fundamental conflict' of Rubio's acting appointments atop USAID and National Archives: Lawmakers' concerns stem from a March 11 memo instructing USAID employees to prepare for mass destruction of agency records. https://www.govexec.com/management/2025/03/house-dems-cite-fundamental-conflict-rubios-acting-appointments-atop-usaid-and-national-archives/404013/   The ‘fake electors' and their role in the 2020 election, explained https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/07/20/fake-electors-charges-trump-2020-election/  

The Gaslit Nation Media Committee, a watchdog against access journalism and regime propaganda, has developed this essential guide. We urge all members of the media to reject complicity in the erosion of democracy.   The American crisis is a global struggle between democracy and fascism—one that threatens the entire world. Each of us has a role in defending freedom. If you work in media, use this guide to safeguard your integrity, your liberty, and the values we cherish—before it's too late. Doing your job well can save lives and democracy.   1. Don't Bury the Lede: Call It an Illegal Tech-Backed Coup To build trust, stick to the facts. When Trump's administration acts illegally, say it—especially in the headline. Call it what it is: a tech-backed coup that exposes Americans' most sensitive data and replaces federal workers with unsecured A.I. to establish a new surveillance state. 2. Make Private Prison Execs Famous Investigate the financial interests behind Trump's immigration system—expose executives, board members, and their connections. Pursue them with cameras; they can't hide behind profits while lives are ruined and civil liberties eroded. 3. Fascism Needs Ignorance From dismantling the Department of Education to the “War on Woke” in universities, Trump continues delegitimizing education. This isn't about competition with other countries—it's about giving everyone the chance to grow as independent thinkers who reject fascism. 4. Follow the Money Investigate Trump's major donors and their role in Musk's illegal purge of government services. Hold them accountable—ask how they view their investments amid the chaos. Track their contracts and regulatory benefits. 5. Expose National Security Threats Trump removed key military officials who prevented unlawful actions. Without them, who will stop him? Trump holds the nuclear football, cozying up to adversaries, sending bombs to Israel, and threatening wars against Canada and Greenland. Focus on how our adversaries are taking advantage. 6. Kleptowatch Focus on how companies exploit customers through greedflation and Amazon's payola for search visibility. While the Biden administration has much to answer for, the media must spotlight the absence of enforcement of investigations brought by Lina Khan and Tim Wu, leaving corporate kleptocrats unchecked. 7. Media Must Thoroughly Cover Media Journalists must cover media attacks, including blocked access to info and censorship (e.g., Ann Telnaes at WaPo). Report on media ecosystem shifts, address bias, and clarify distinctions between reporting, opinion, and lies. Provide context on media ownership. 8. Draw Historical Parallels Trump, Musk, and allies are enacting policies similar to dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. The media must challenge their unfounded assertions. They are attacking the press and critics, reminiscent of regimes like Pol Pot's and Rwanda's genocide. 9. Trump is Trying to Turn America into an Autocracy: Act Like It Columbia Journalism Review shared 10 essential tips for journalists reporting from autocracies. Share these with your teams, including your company's lawyers—killing big stories and obeying in advance is self-destructive. 10. Shine a Light on Private Prisons The private prison industry needs scrutiny, especially with Trump's lack of oversight. Innocent people are caught in reckless immigration raids as the system grows unchecked. Regular coverage of Guantanamo Bay is crucial due to its history of unlawful detention and Trump's plan for a prison camp there for 30,000 people. 11. Gilead is Here The media has abandoned calling out Trump's toxic masculinity regarding reproductive rights and civil rights. Raise awareness of the deadly consequences for women, including trans women, and all nonwhite people. 12. Access Journalism is Betrayal Fascism's history includes journalists from major outlets becoming "masters of euphemism," (to quote Gareth Jones), downplaying atrocities and broken laws to protect access. History will remember you for doing your job or being bought. Doing your job well can save lives and democracy. 13. Family Members Deserve Special Attention Trump's administration is granting lucrative positions to family members of allies and donors, giving them undue influence over policy. These self-dealing networks must be mapped and exposed. 14. Unmask Voter Suppression Election analysis must address gerrymandering, unfair Senate representation favoring "red states," the Electoral College designed to protect elites, and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Don't treat our voter suppression crisis like "horse race" politics. 15. Focus on the 1% Expose extreme wealth inequality—how the 1% dodge taxes and exploit loopholes to preserve their wealth. Put a spotlight on how inequality fuels authoritarianism and is a direct threat to democracy. 16. Cover Protests Highlight actions challenging the White House's destructive crimes. People need to see that citizens care about the laws being broken by Trump's administration and that they're not alone. 17. They're Testing Boundaries: Say It When something is "unprecedented," that means they're testing boundaries, to see what they can get away with. Say it. 18. The Weird Fights Matter Trump renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America may seem "weird," but it's part of the fascist pageantry, like Mussolini's famous eyeliner and Putin's shirtless photos. Look to experts in autocracy to see which stories are being used as a distraction and which stories are important to cover.  An expanded version of the Gaslit Nation Media Guide can be found here: https://www.gaslitnationpod.com/media-guide   For More: Ten Tips for Reporting in an Autocracy American journalists have much to learn from colleagues in countries where democracy has been under siege. https://www.cjr.org/political_press/ten-tips-for-reporting-in-an-autocracy.php   Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!   Music Credit: "Tafi Maradi no voice" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com). Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/