Podcasts about Executor

This special podcast edition of This Way Out Radio presents the full recording of The Quentin Crisp Memorial program that was excerpted in This Way Out's feature in program #1964. Here, we listen to the full memorial program including eulogies from those who knew him best. This program recorded and produced by Brian DeShazor won a Golden Reel Award for local events coverage at the 2001 National Federation of Community Broadcasters. Quentin Crisp Memorial: Hosted by Phillip Ward, Executor to the Quentin Crisp Estate. March 3, 2000 memorial celebration at Cooper Union in New York City honoring Crisp. Speakers: Elaine Goycoolea, Denise Pratt-Renner, Francis Ramsey, Penny Arcade, Louis Coallaieni, Evan Thompson, Joan Thompson, Stephen Sorrentino, Tim Fountain, Guy Kettlehack, Eric Bentley, Sylvia Miles, Ned Rorem, Richard Connolly, Tom Steele, Larry Ashmead, Chip Snell, and John Hurt. Additional music courtesy of Evan Lurie composed for the film "Homo Heights," co-starring Quentin Crisp. (59 min.)

If you've been punting your estate planning all year, this is your wake-up call. In this episode, I bring in Griffin Bridgers—a recovering attorney who lives in this space—to tear down the myths and get you moving before the holidays eat your calendar. We get real about why estate planning slips to the bottom of the list: nobody wants to think about death, and everybody swears they'll “get to it later.” Later rarely comes. We start with basics that most people still miss: your will's validity, witness requirements, and why “perfect is the enemy of good.” Get the core documents done, then build the habit of revisiting them as your life changes—because it will. Your family changes. Your relationships change. Your appointees change. Set-and-forget is a fantasy. Review is the job. Then we crack open the myths: “The bank has my beneficiary, so I'm covered” (no, that's not a plan), and “my attorney has the originals, so I don't need to track anything” (do your people even know how to reach that attorney—or if they're still practicing?). This is where good intentions die and heirs get stuck. Business owners—this one's for you. Your buy-sell is not a checkbox. It's a minefield of human behavior, valuation drift, liquidity shortfalls, “I'm done working but still own 50%” scenarios, and spouses who don't agree with your sweetheart deal. If you don't define the rules, a judge will. Griffin's core punchline is simple: death is never easy, but you can make it easier. Start with the “who” and the “how.” Review your will, trusts, POAs, and—crucially—the people you've named. Educate them on their roles. Create an instruction manual so someone can actually run the playbook when you're gone. Then get your corporate docs in one place, with minutes and filings current. Organize first. Then review. Then fix. Watch the full episode here: https://youtu.be/7ZRs0r_XCVsAs always we ask you to comment, DM, whatever it takes to have a conversation to help you take the next step in your journey, reach out on any platform!Twitter, FaceBook, Instagram, Tiktok, LinkedinDISCLOSURE: Awards and rankings by third parties are not indicative of future performance or client investment success. Past performance does not guarantee future results. All investment strategies carry profit/loss potential and cannot eliminate investment risks. Information discussed may not reflect current positions/recommendations. While believed accurate, Black Mammoth does not guarantee information accuracy. This broadcast is not a solicitation for securities transactions or personalized investment advice. Tax/estate planning information is general - consult professionals for specific situations. Full disclosures at www.blackmammoth.com.

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer 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@nexfirm.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 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.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.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@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.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@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and 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 an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.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@nexfirm.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@substack.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.substack.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, November 26. 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

With less than one more before the Supreme Court's oral argument in one of the most explosive cases of this term, Trump v. Slaughter, you're encouraged to join the Anchoring Truths Podcast for a discussion of this important case over whether the President remove any Senate-confirmed commissioner of an agency he no longer wishes to have serve in that federal agency. The constitutional question in the case concerns statutory removal protections for the Federal Trade Commission—previously upheld in the Court's landmark decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States—and whether a federal court may prevent removal of a commissioner from public office. The stakes for this case are enormous for all three branches of the government, foremost though the executive. Is the power to remove an executive branch agency's commissioner vested solely in the President, as it is under what's known as the theory of the unitary executive? Or can Congress place conditions on removal that prevent such exercise of the executive's authority?Joining us to preview the oral argument is Mark Chenoweth of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Mark is NCLA's President and Chief Legal Officer, and along with Margot Cleveland and Professor Philip Hamburger, the co-authors of an amicus brief in the case.Mark served as the first chief of staff to Congressman Mike Pompeo, as legal counsel to Commissioner Anne Northup at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, as an attorney advisor in the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice, and as a law clerk to the Hon. Danny J. Boggs on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.Mark has worked in several different roles in the private sector as well. He began his legal career in D.C. as a regulatory associate at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. He then returned to his home state of Kansas to serve as in-house counsel for Koch Industries. Most recently he spent over four years as general counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation.Learn more about NCLA.

Are you listed as an executor in someone's will—or think you might be someday?   Discover the one tiny detail that can save you weeks of stress, expensive headaches, and family arguments.   In this episode, David shares real listener stories and breaks down the practical tips you need to avoid common estate pitfalls.   Don't let small oversights cause big problems—tune in to get clear, real-world advice that every executor should know.   For David's book, other resources and more visit www.davidedey.com

As we navigate the complex world of court trials involving Donald Trump, the landscape is both fascinating and contentious. Over the past few days, several key legal challenges have emerged, setting the stage for a pivotal term in the Supreme Court.One of the most significant cases is *Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.*, which has been consolidated with another case for briefing and oral argument. This case, filed by Donald Trump, President of the United States, et al., against V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al., was docketed on September 4, 2025. The petition for a writ of certiorari was granted, and the case is set for argument in the first week of November 2025[1]. This case is part of a broader series of legal challenges involving Trump, highlighting his efforts to expand executive power and the numerous lawsuits resisting these actions.Another case that has garnered attention is *Trump v. Slaughter*, which will be argued in December 2025. This case involves the firing of a Federal Trade Commissioner and raises critical questions about presidential removal power. Specifically, it challenges the precedent set by *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, which restricted the president's ability to remove agency heads without good cause. Trump has argued that this decision was incorrect, advocating for a "unitary executive" theory that grants the president broader authority over the executive branch[2].In addition to these high-profile cases, Trump is also facing challenges in *Trump v. Cook*, which concerns the removal of Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on this matter, focusing on whether the president has the power to fire governors of the Federal Reserve, who are appointed for 14-year terms and can only be removed for cause[2]. This case is particularly significant because it involves an institution that is often seen as operating independently of direct presidential control.These cases reflect a broader trend of legal challenges to Trump's executive actions, with many involving national security and constitutional issues. The Trump administration is currently embroiled in nearly 300 active cases, with a significant portion of these reaching the Supreme Court on its emergency docket[3]. The court's decisions on these matters will have profound implications for the future of presidential power and the checks and balances within the U.S. system.As we watch these trials unfold, it becomes clear that this term of the Supreme Court will be critical in shaping American democracy. The balance between executive authority and judicial oversight is being tested, and the outcomes will have lasting impacts on the rule of law and institutional norms.Thank you for tuning in today. Join us next week for more updates on these and other important legal developments. This has been a Quiet Please production; for more information and analysis, visit QuietPleaseDotAI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Who should you trust with your future?

It's been another remarkable stretch in the world of courtrooms where Donald Trump's legal battles have made headlines across the country. Here we go right to what's happened for Donald Trump in the past few days and right up to this moment, September 28, 2025.Just days ago, the Supreme Court issued an order in Trump v. Slaughter—this case is all about Trump's removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause earlier in the year. That's significant because it challenged an almost century-old precedent from the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Executor, which restricts a president's ability to remove FTC commissioners unless there's proven inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. President Trump didn't claim any of those grounds, just policy differences. A federal judge had ordered Slaughter to be reinstated. The lower court's ruling was then stayed by the Supreme Court. The justices decided, in a 6-3 vote, that Trump's action could stand, at least for now, while the case moves forward. They ordered the parties to prepare for oral arguments this December. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a dissent, pointing to the statutory protection Congress gave FTC commissioners and warning about threats to the independence of agencies like this. The implications could be dramatic if the Court ends up narrowing or overturning the protection set in 1935, potentially reshaping not just the FTC but other independent agencies.Meanwhile, Trump's legal schedule remains packed with deadlines and developments. In the D.C. election interference case, Trump has been filing motions on presidential immunity and on dismissing charges using a slew of statutory arguments. Most deadlines for pretrial filings have been put on pause until October 24, as Judge Tanya Chutkan, who returned to jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity, issued a scheduling order. The battle continues over whether Trump should be shielded from prosecution for acts taken while in office. These are questions the courts are wrestling with right now, and will be through the end of this year.In Florida, the classified documents case has advanced after Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the superseding indictment, arguing that the appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith was unlawful. The government appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and now both sides are filing briefs, with friends of the court chiming in too. Oral arguments and decisions from that appeal could affect the timeline for any trial, or even its scope.Trump is also tangled up in New York—with appeals on last year's civil fraud judgment and the criminal conviction, where Justice Juan Merchan is now weighing a motion to set aside the jury's verdict, citing presidential immunity in light of the Supreme Court's recent guidance. A decision is expected from Justice Merchan in November.In Georgia, Trump and his codefendants are pushing appeals about disqualifying District Attorney Fani Willis, and all those appeals will be heard together, with oral arguments scheduled soon at the Court of Appeals.There has even been a class action suit filed by groups like the ACLU and NAACP, following a Supreme Court decision in CASA v. Trump, challenging aspects of the Trump administration's policy actions.As you can hear, it's a legal whirlwind that touches multiple corners of the country and asks fundamental questions about presidential power, agency independence, and the limits of the law. Come back next week for more, and thanks again for tuning in. This has been a Quiet Please production and for more check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Pastor Ruth Febriana joins us with a message from Ruth 3, titled “The Plot, The Plan, The Execution, The Executor.” In this chapter we see how bold steps of faith and quiet acts of trust set the stage for redemption, and how God's hand is at work in the details of our lives. Want to learn more about Connections Church? Visit our website: https://myconnections.church/

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showJames Comey has been indicted, charged with making a false statement and obstruction of justice. Now, the government will try to prove he lied to Congress when he said he never “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” about the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, even though he had, in fact, authorized “Person 3” to do this. But — who will prosecutors say Comey did authorize?That's our conversation for free listeners. Paying subscribers also get our conversation about:* The Trump administration's motion for the Supreme Court to issue a stay letting them kick Lisa Cook off the Federal Reserve Board for now, and the ways the court may try to avoid having to weigh in on the exact special, unique historical nature that makes the Federal Reserve special, unique, and not subject to the decision it's surely about to issue overturning Humphrey's Executor;* The guilty verdict against Ryan Routh and a judge's admonishment of prosecutors in the case against Luigi Mangione;* What legal exposure Tom Homan could have faced if he really accepted $50,000 cash in a Cava bag; and* Updates on Trump's try-hard defamation litigation against the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they reflect on Charlie Kirk's memorial service, debunk the lies surrounding the Jimmy Kimmel broadcasting controversy, and discuss the Supreme Court's decision to reconsider Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Mollie also shares her love for Mexican food, and David shares his culture picks for the week. If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they reflect on Charlie Kirk's memorial service, debunk the lies surrounding the Jimmy Kimmel broadcasting controversy, and discuss the Supreme Court's decision to reconsider Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Mollie also shares her love for Mexican food, and David shares his culture picks […]

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they reflect on Charlie Kirk's memorial service, debunk the lies surrounding the Jimmy Kimmel broadcasting controversy, and discuss the Supreme Court's decision to reconsider Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Mollie also shares her love for Mexican food, and David shares his culture picks for the week. If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

Listeners, the whirlwind of legal action surrounding Donald Trump has barely slowed as we move through September 2025. Just days ago, the Supreme Court made headlines yet again by stepping directly into a case involving Trump and the removal protections of Federal Trade Commission members. On September 22, Chief Justice John Roberts granted Trump's application for a stay, effectively pausing the District Court's order from July and elevating the matter to a landmark petition for certiorari before judgment. That means the Justices will be reviewing, arguably for the first time at this stage, whether statutory removal protections for FTC officials breach the separation of powers—and even whether Humphrey's Executor, the historic 1935 case defining those powers, may be overturned. The case will be heard in December and has already sparked dissent from Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, who sharply criticized the immediate empowerment of the President to discharge a sitting FTC member.But that Supreme Court drama is just one thread. The past several weeks have been thick with new filings, deadline jockeying, and complicated appeals spanning federal and state courts. The Master Calendar, as continually updated by Just Security, lays out an intense series of deadlines. October alone promises major swings in several pivotal criminal and civil cases. Trump's legal team is preparing filings for challenges in the D.C. election interference case, with supplemental motions and redaction objections, arguing—once again—about the boundaries of presidential immunity. The government, meanwhile, is sharpening its own responses, aiming to block or overturn Trump's renewed bids to avoid prosecution under immunity doctrines.New York is also in the spotlight. Trump's appeal from Judge Alvin Hellerstein's rejection of his attempt to move the criminal case out of Manhattan is due by October 14. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been relentless, and Trump is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep his hearings away from local courts, banking on the hope that federal judges might prove more favorable.And in Georgia, things are just as fiery. Mark Meadows, Trump's former Chief of Staff, has petitioned the Supreme Court after the Eleventh Circuit dashed his hopes of moving his own criminal case out of state to the federal level. Trump, alongside other defendants, is also challenging Judge McAfee's decision not to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis—expect oral arguments on that tangled issue in early December before the Georgia Court of Appeals.Behind the scenes, the fallout from that major Supreme Court presidential immunity decision in August is still echoing. Judge Tanya Chutkan in D.C. now holds jurisdiction once again. All pretrial deadlines are stayed through late October, pushing the calendar further into the campaign season and setting up a tense winter for Trump, his attorneys, and prosecutors alike.With appeals stacking up—on everything from the funding and appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith in Florida to the consolidated appeals in the New York civil fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James—the months ahead are set to be a constitutional reckoning that could redefine not only Trump's fate, but the boundaries of presidential authority and accountability in America.Thank you for tuning in today. Come back next week for more of the latest legal developments—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

In this episode of The Tax Chick Podcast, I am joined by my friend and fellow professional, Michelle D. Coleman, to dig into a topic that every executor needs to understand: the tax implications that arise after someone passes away.Michelle shares her expertise on the common questions and pitfalls that executors face when navigating taxes on death. Together, we walk through the fundamentals of estate administration, tax filings, and why early planning and communication are so important.We cover:The different tax returns that may need to be filed (terminal T1 return, estate T3 return, and more).How the deemed disposition of assets works in Canada — and what it means for executors.Why personal property (antiques, jewelry, collections, etc.) can create unexpected tax issues.The importance of holdbacks, communication with beneficiaries, and managing expectations.Special considerations for non-resident beneficiaries and why CRA clearances matter.The often-overlooked rules around executor compensation and tax reporting.Building a collaborative team of advisors (lawyer, accountant, investment professional) to help executors succeed.If you have ever wondered what happens from a tax perspective after someone dies, or if you have been named an executor and feel unsure where to begin, this episode will give you a clear roadmap of what to expect and why it is so important to get the right advice early on.MORE ABOUT OUR SPECIAL GUEST:Michelle Coleman  HERE ARE SOME OTHER WAYS TO CONNECT WITH ME:My website! Email: thetaxchickpodcast@gmail.com@tax.chick (IG) LinkedInBe a "Tax Chick VIP"

Today we covered Revelation 5! Christ is the perfect and complete Judge, Redeemer and Executor! This world practices evil and sin, but God is patient and wants as many people to be saved as possible. Judgement will come, and so will redemption - you can't understand one without the other.

Bertie Nel – Head: Financial Planning and Advice, Momentum SAfm Market Update - Podcasts and live stream

The Supreme Court used the shadow docket to legalize racial profiling, although only Justice Kavanaugh was dumb enough to admit it out loud. It also overturned Humphrey's Executor, but this time even Kav wouldn't cop to it. Meanwhile at the White House, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought discovers ONE WEIRD trick to steal Congress's power of the purse. And the Second Circuit confirms, Alina Habba is still very bad at her job.   Links:   White House Prayer Executive Order https://www.whitehouse.gov/america250/america-prays/   SCOTUS Shadow Docket Order Trump v. Slaughter https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/090825zr_4f15.pdf   Second Circuit Order Carroll v. Trump 1 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.e508a4b2-feae-4592-a6dc-d30f9ed35bb6/gov.uscourts.ca2.e508a4b2-feae-4592-a6dc-d30f9ed35bb6.134.1_1.pdf   SCOTUS Docket Trump v. Vasquez Perdomo https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a169.html   White House “pocket rescission” announcement (Aug. 29, 2025) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/08/historic-pocket-rescission-package-eliminates-woke-weaponized-and-wasteful-spending/   AIDS Vaccine Coalition v. State https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277333/gov.uscourts.dcd.277333.145.0_4.pdf   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Are you prepared to safeguard your financial future and tackle the challenges of estate settlement? In this episode of Dollars & Sense, we dive deep into the essentials of risk management—from understanding investment volatility to balancing risk and reward for lasting financial health. Discover practical strategies like diversification, setting clear financial goals, and building emergency funds to protect what matters most. But that's not all! We also unravel the complexities behind estate planning and the often-thankless role of the executor. Learn how to avoid common pitfalls, reduce family conflicts, and streamline the process for a smooth transition of assets. Packed with insights from the acclaimed "Dollars and Sense" and "Next Gen Dollars and Sense" books, this episode equips you with actionable tips to take charge of your finances and confidently navigate life's big transitions. 

Can Trump actually fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook? It's something no president has ever tried before – Asha and Renato break down why it's such a big deal and likely headed to the Supreme Court. Plus, the FBI raid on John Bolton raises serious questions: Is Trump's DOJ crossing the line by targeting political opponents? Tune in and find out!Asha Substack: https://asharangappa.substack.com/Subscribe to our podcast: https://link.chtbl.com/its-complicatedFollow Asha on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/asharangappa.bsky.socialFollow Renato on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/renatomariotti.bsky.socialFollow Asha on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asha.rangappa/Follow Renato on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/renato.mariotti/Humphrey's Executor: https://youtu.be/cS_xHqkQ26w?si=p9dvxMreVQs6qZu- Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF by MeidasTouch podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Christine Chabot of Marquette University Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join to discuss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook's termination and the broader legal and constitutional issues it raises, such as the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve and the scope of the president's removal power.    Resources Trump v. Wilcox (2025) Collins v. Yellin (2021) Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) Christine Chabot, “Is the Federal Reserve Constitutional? An Originalist Argument for Independent Agencies,” Notre Dame Law Review (2020) Michael McConnell, “Opinion: Save the Federal Reserve's independence by splitting the agency,” Washington Post (September 3, 2025) In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders' Guide to Happiness Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders' lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.  Follow Pursuit: The Founders' Guide to Happiness on Apple Podcast and Spotify.     Stay Connected and Learn More  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.  Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.  Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.  Support our important work:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Does the President control independent agencies? This panel will examine the Trump administration’s efforts to reassert presidential control over independent federal agencies, considering the constitutional, legal, and practical implications of such actions. Central to the discussion will be Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the independence of certain regulatory bodies by limiting the President’s removal power, and the perspectives raised by legal cases such as Hampton Dellinger’s, which questioned the administration’s authority over the removal of agency officials. Proponents argue that increased presidential oversight enhances accountability, ensuring agencies align with elected leadership’s policies, while critics warn that such changes could erode agency independence and introduce political influence into regulatory decisions. The discussion will consider whether these changes promote efficient governance or threaten the integrity of federal oversight.Featuring:Prof. Jed Shugerman, Professor, Boston University School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The George Washington University Law School

In this episode, Andryanna sits down with Debbie Stanley who is a Trust and Estate Practitioner, Estate and Trust Professional, Certified Executor Advisor, and the CEO & Senior Estate Administrator for ETP Canada. They talk about a role many of us will take on and select for ourselves—but few of us are prepared for: the executor of a loved one's estate.Debbie breaks down what the job really entails, how to start the conversation about death and legacy (without it feeling morbid), and why women are often the ones carrying the invisible load when it comes to end-of-life planning.Whether you've been named an executor, are navigating loss, or simply want to be proactive for your family and choose the right executor for your estate, this episode is full of compassionate guidance and concrete takeaways to help you feel more confident and prepared.In this episode:What it really means to be an executor (and what most people don't realize)The emotional labour women carry in estate administrationTips for choosing the right executor—and supporting them nowHow to start family conversations about end-of-life planningWhy preparation is an act of love, not fearCONNECT WITH DEBBIE:Learn more about Debbie's course Executor Ready and how it's helping Canadians reduce stress during life's hardest transitions.Visit etpcanada.caDownload free estate tools HERECONNECT WITH ANDRYANNA:Get your copy of The Juggle is Real: Authentic Self-Care Planner Vol. 2 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ On ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠hello@andryanna.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠✨ Free download: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Simple Summer Days Visual Guide⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠*Click ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for your FREE '30 Days For Me' Self-Care Guide.And please visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Andryanna.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for blogs, giveaways, workshops, tools, resources and more.

In this episode, Christian and Kevin revisit the hot topic of the government's proposed inheritance tax (IHT) changes affecting pensions from 2027. Following a surge in listener interest, they clarify what's changed, who's now responsible, and what practical steps listeners must take to protect their wealth and family.Key Discussion Points:Background:The government plans to tax pensions on death, a major shift from past policy.The responsibility for reporting and paying this tax will now fall on personal representatives (executors), not financial services companies.Why This Matters:Most executors are chosen for trust, not financial knowledge.Executors are now legally liable for getting it right – mistakes could mean personal financial penalties.Practical Risks:Many people don't know where all their pensions are or which are taxable.Appointing a professional executor (like a bank) could cost families a significant portion of their inheritance, sometimes unnecessarily.Action Steps:Review your will and your choice of executors.Ensure your executor is financially savvy or has access to professional advice.Consolidate pensions where sensible for simplicity and clarity.Avoid defaulting to professional institutions as executors without understanding the costs.WealthBuilders' Support:WealthBuilders is creating two practical guides:For those making a will (how to choose an executor)For executors (what their new responsibilities entail)Guides will be available soon at wealthbuilders.co.uk/IHT and wealthbuilders.co.uk/executorFinal Advice:Awareness is key: know your assets, your will, and your executor's readiness.Take action now—don't wait until it's too late.Call to Action:Sign up for the forthcoming guides at wealthbuilders.co.uk/IHTReview your will and executor choicesShare this episode with anyone who has a pension and a familyContact WealthBuilders with questions or to book a call via the websiteResources Mentioned:Download our free guide on inheritance tax changes for pensions: wealthbuilders.co.uk/IHT Be the first to access our upcoming Guide for Executors — register your interest here: wealthbuilders.co.uk/executorCatch up on WealthTalks episode on IHT changes: How to Protect Your Pension from Inheritance Tax Changes Coming in 2027Connect with Us:Listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, and all major platforms.For more inspiring stories and actionable tips, subscribe to Wealth Talk and leave us a review!Next Steps On Your WealthBuilding Journey: Join the WealthBuilders Facebook CommunitySchedule a 1:1 call with one of our teamBecome a member of WealthBuildersIf you have been enjoying listening to WealthTalk - Please Leave Us A Review!If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review WealthTalk on your favourite podcast platform

Real Estate Attorney Dave Schlueter, who works with the Law Offices of Dave Schlueter Ltd., joins Jon Hansen to discuss what goes into becoming an executor of an estate and debunks common misconceptions. To learn more about what Dave Schlueter can help you with, go to schlueterlawoffice.com or call 1-630-285-5300.

This Day in Legal History: Apollo 11On July 24, 1969, the Apollo 11 mission concluded when astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins safely splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, returning from the first successful lunar landing. While the event was widely celebrated as a scientific and political triumph, it also raised an unexpectedly terrestrial legal issue: customs law. Upon returning to Earth, the astronauts were required to fill out a standard U.S. Customs declaration form. The departure point was listed as “Moon,” and the flight number: “Apollo 11.” Among the items declared were “moon rock and moon dust samples,” brought back from the lunar surface.Despite their unprecedented journey, the crew still had to comply with Department of Agriculture and Customs rules designed to monitor and control potentially hazardous biological materials. In the “Declaration of Health” section of the form, they noted that the presence of any condition that could spread disease was “To be determined.” This moment captured how U.S. law, even in its most routine forms, extended to the edge of human experience.The astronauts' re-entry into the U.S. technically triggered the same legal processes that greet travelers arriving from abroad. This event also underscored the broader legal challenge of adapting existing statutes to cover entirely new domains like space travel. Though humorous in hindsight, the customs declaration reflected a serious concern: whether extraterrestrial material might carry unknown biological risks.The completed form, now a historical artifact, reminds us that legal frameworks often evolve reactively. In 1969, space law was largely uncharted territory. Today, those early steps form part of the foundation for international agreements like the Outer Space Treaty and modern debates over resource rights beyond Earth.The U.S. Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump the authority to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), reversing a lower court ruling that had temporarily blocked the dismissals. The CPSC was established by Congress in 1972 as an independent agency to protect the public from hazardous products, and its members were traditionally shielded from at-will removal by the president. The justices, in a brief unsigned order, suggested that Trump was likely to prevail in arguing that the Constitution gives him broad authority to remove executive officials, even from agencies Congress meant to be independent.This move followed a June ruling by District Judge Matthew Maddox, who sided with the ousted commissioners, citing a 1935 Supreme Court precedent (Humphrey's Executor v. United States) that upheld removal protections for independent agency officials. The Supreme Court's majority, with all three liberal justices dissenting, appeared to undermine that precedent. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned that using the Court's emergency docket to erode agency independence risked shifting constitutional power toward the presidency.The fired commissioners, whose terms extended through 2025 to 2028, had sued Trump, arguing their removal lacked legal justification. Their attorney, Nicolas Sansone, criticized the Court's decision as harmful to public safety oversight. The Justice Department, however, contended that limiting the president's removal power was unconstitutional.This decision echoes a similar ruling in May allowing Trump to remove members of other federal boards, reinforcing a pattern of the Court endorsing expanded executive control over federal agencies.US Supreme Court lets Trump remove consumer product safety commissioners | ReutersSupreme Court Lets Trump Oust Top Consumer-Safety Officials - BloombergU.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals withdrew a June 30 opinion in a securities fraud case against CorMedix Inc. after attorneys pointed out significant factual and legal errors. Lawyers flagged that the opinion included invented quotes, misattributed statements, and references to non-existent or misidentified cases. Among the problems was a supposed quote from Dang v. Amarin Corp. about “classic evidence of scienter,” which does not appear in the actual case, as well as misquoted content from a case involving Intelligroup and a fabricated citation to a Verizon case in the Southern District of New York.The withdrawn opinion had denied CorMedix's motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging the company misled investors about its FDA approval efforts for the drug DefenCath. CorMedix's counsel, Andrew Lichtman of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, raised concerns but clarified he wasn't seeking reconsideration, only correction of the record. The same opinion had been cited as persuasive authority in a separate but similar shareholder lawsuit against Outlook Therapeutics Inc., before being discredited due to its inaccuracies.The incident drew attention not just for the mistakes themselves, but because judicial errors of this nature are rare—especially when resembling the kind of AI-generated errors that have recently led to lawyer sanctions. There is no indication AI was involved in drafting Judge Neals' opinion, but the situation reflects heightened scrutiny of legal drafting in an era where reliance on technology is increasing.Judge Withdraws Pharma Opinion After Lawyer Flags Made-Up QuotesColumbia University has agreed to pay over $200 million to the U.S. government in a settlement with the Trump administration, resolving federal investigations and securing the reinstatement of most of its previously suspended federal funding. The dispute stemmed from Columbia's handling of pro-Palestinian campus protests and alleged antisemitism, which led the administration in March to freeze $400 million in grants. In addition to the main settlement, Columbia will pay $21 million to resolve claims brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.The agreement includes several conditions: Columbia must discipline students involved in severe campus disruptions, reform its Faculty Senate, review its international admissions process, and overhaul its Middle Eastern studies programs to promote “viewpoint diversity.” The university is also required to eliminate race-based considerations in hiring and admissions and to dismantle its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.Columbia has agreed to appoint two new administrators: one to oversee compliance with the settlement and another to address antisemitism. The university has also severed ties with the pro-Palestinian group Columbia University Apartheid Divest and adopted a new definition of antisemitism that equates it with opposition to Zionism—moves that have sparked backlash among students and faculty.Rights advocates have voiced alarm over academic freedom and due process, especially amid reports of deportation attempts against foreign pro-Palestinian students. Critics say the government is equating legitimate political protest with antisemitism, while ignoring rising Islamophobia and anti-Arab bias.Columbia University to pay over $200 million to resolve Trump probes | ReutersFrench President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have filed a defamation lawsuit in Delaware against U.S. right-wing podcaster Candace Owens, alleging she spread false and harmful claims about Brigitte's gender identity. The suit centers on Owens' podcast series Becoming Brigitte, which claims Brigitte was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux—actually the name of her older brother—and accuses the couple of incest and identity fraud. The Macrons argue these assertions amount to a global smear campaign intended to boost Owens' profile and cause personal harm.Owens responded by labeling the lawsuit a politically motivated PR move and maintained it is an attack on her First Amendment rights. Her spokesperson framed the suit as a foreign government's attempt to silence an American journalist. The Macrons, however, stated that they had made multiple requests for a retraction, all of which Owens ignored.Defamation lawsuits by sitting world leaders are rare, and as public figures, the Macrons must meet the high legal bar of proving “actual malice”—that Owens knowingly spread falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The complaint also notes the rumors originated in 2021 and were amplified by other high-profile commentators like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan. A similar French court case involving Brigitte ended in a temporary victory, but was later overturned on appeal and is now pending before France's highest court.French president Macron sues right-wing podcaster over claim France's first lady was born male | Reuters 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 if the story you've been keeping tucked away is exactly what someone else needs to hear?In this episode, host Natalie Benamou talks with author Cyndy Wulfsberg about the courage it takes to share your story and why your voice matters now more than ever. Cyndy opens up about her journey from quiet writing to published author, and how her chapter in the new book Power of What's Next: Bold Moves by Design reflects how our stories are worth sharing.Together they explore what it means to embrace your next chapter with purpose, even when others don't understand, and how telling your story can create connection, community, and personal freedom.Key Takeaways:Why storytelling is a powerful way to connect with othersHow Cyndy turned a file cabinet full of writing into two booksWhat it means to follow your career path at every ageA behind the scenes insider view of writing the Power of What's Next: Bold Moves by DesignGet your copy of the e-book on August 5th https://hercsuite.com/power-of-what-next-book-launch/

The podcast show we are releasing this week focuses generally on the so-called “Unitary Executive Theory” and specifically on the legality of President Trump firing without cause the Democratic Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission and the members of other independent agencies, despite language in the governing statutes that prohibit the President from firing a member without cause and a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphrey's Executor holding that the firing of an FTC Commissioner by the President is unlawful if done without cause. Our guest is Patrick Sobkowski who teaches constitutional law, courts and public policy, and American politics at Marquette University. His scholarship focuses on constitutional and administrative law, specifically the administrative state and its relationship to the other branches of government. Our show began with an explanation of the “Unitary Executive Theory” which is defined as a constitutional law theory according to which the President has sole authority over the executive branch including independent federal agencies. It is based on the so-called “vesting clause “of the Constitution which vests all executive power in the President. The theory often comes up in disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch (including Federal agencies); transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to control agencies' rule-making. There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope. More expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons. Since the Reagan Administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices. We then discussed a litany of Supreme Court opinions dealing with the question of whether the President has the unfettered right to remove executive agency employees: a. Myers v. US (1926) b. Humphrey's Executor (1935) c. Morrison v. Olson (1988) d. Seila Law (2020) We then discussed Trump's removals of the Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board and the Supreme Court's opinion and order staying the lower court's order that the removals were unlawful. In addition to casting doubt on the continued viability of Humphrey's Executor, the Court included dicta to the effect that the logic of its opinion about the NLRB and the MSPB would not apply to the Federal Reserve Board because the Fed is not really an executive agency and that its functions are more akin to the functions performed by the First Bank and Second Bank of the United States. Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted the podcast. The podcast recording is here.

How can you prepare to be the executor of your parents' estate? Join Jeff as he unpacks the emotional and logistical challenges described in the AARP article, "Mom Died. Then Came the Financial Ordeal." It's a first-person account of serving as an executor. You'll learn how to avoid common pitfalls and why proactive communication is a powerful gift. Jeff also details the benefits of pre-planning, education, and self-care, especially for adult children who are dealing with grief and responsibility at the same time.  "Mom Died. Then Came the Financial Ordeal” originally appeared in AARP: The Magazine and has been shared in numerous publications, including The Amazing Care Network (ACN). Read the ACN version here: https://www.amazingcarenetwork.com/my-mom-died-then-came-the-ordeal/   WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW (00:00) Episode introduction. (03:02) The AARP article is a daughter's story of navigating the probate system after her mother's death.  (07:35) Communicate openly with your children so that they are not caught off guard by funeral costs and other expenses.  (10:06) Consider pre-arranging and pre-paying for the funeral. (10:36) With regard to legal fees, trust administration tends to be less expensive than probate.   (13:23) For banks and utilities, in particular, some red tape is unavoidable. (15:47) An executor can benefit from education and guidance before and during the probate process, especially when under the emotional strain of losing a parent.  (16:54) The executor can be held personally liable if there is a problem with creditors, beneficiaries, etc. (19:15) Experienced law firms are invaluable when managing probate administration for an executor. (22:06) Communicate your wishes to your children. Organize your administrative and financial info now to prevent chaos later.   (24:10) Survivors should not neglect self-care.   LINKS AND RESOURCES MENTIONED Bellomo & Associates workshops:https://bellomoassociates.com/workshops/ Life Care Planning The Three Secrets of Estate Planning Nuts & Bolts of Medicaid For more information, call us at (717) 845-5390. Connect with Bellomo & Associates on Social Media Tune in Saturdays at 7:30 a.m. Eastern to WSBA radio: https://www.newstalkwsba.com/ X (formerlyTwitter):https://twitter.com/bellomoassoc YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/BellomoAssociates Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/bellomoassociates Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/bellomoassociates/ LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/bellomoandassociates WAYS TO WORK WITH JEFFREY BELLOMO Contact Us:https://bellomoassociates.com/contact/ Practice areas:https://bellomoassociates.com/practice-areas/      

We have been discussing the importance of estate planning for your overall financial life.  But when it comes to choosing the executor of your estate, meaning the person who will handle your trust and estate upon your passing, your executor should have specific skills especially when it comes to real estate.  This afternoon on the Jon Sanchez Show at 3pm, we'll let you know 9 qualities your executor should have.

A radical recontextualisation forces Alfie to question what it means to be alive. For Neige, the answer is simple.Transcript: https://hangingslothstudios.com/nqd-49/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/hangingslothstudiosEpisode Content WarningsPlease bear in mind that this show is a work of horror fiction and frequently places characters in situations which jeopardise their psychological and physical health. This episode contains: References to death, grief and lossMentions of childhood illness, including hospital treatments and seizuresMentions of potential child neglect and endangermentMentions of self-harm (cigarette burns)Mentions of bloodReferences to suicidal ideationEmotional distressMentions of intent to killScenes with sexual undertonesBiting (with sounds)Not Quite Dead is written, created and performed by Eira Major, with guest actor Alex Peilober Richardson, under a creative commons 4.0 attribution license, with Kickstarter Vampire Producers Aster and Ted. Live, laugh, bite. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This past week, the Supreme Court issued stays of injunctions which lower courts had issued, those injunctions blocking the firings of officials on statutorily independent agencies.  In doing so, the Court may have pointed to an imminent overruling of Humphrey's Executor, possibly removing existing limitations on the unitary executive theory.  At the same time, the Court moved to protect the Federal Reserve, or at least markets' perception of the independence of that crucial Board.  Several justices reacted strongly, led by Justice Kagan, who found fault not only in the ruling regarding the injunction, but in the behavior of the President in bringing this case on in the first place.  We take a deeper look at these controversies.  Meanwhile, the Court deadlocked in a religious freedom case, and surprisingly, we see a connection between these two events.  And some other tidbits, as well.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

In this episode of the Moonshots Podcast, Mike and Mark unpack one of the most direct and actionable productivity books out there: Do It Today by Darius Foroux.Are you constantly planning but rarely executing? Distracted from your goals by a never-ending feed of notifications and interruptions? Then this episode is your wake-up call. Foroux doesn't preach hustle culture or productivity for productivity's sake. Instead, he lays down a blueprint for doing the work that matters — starting today.Youtube: https://youtu.be/6Xy7anO7hgE

If you find yourself in this role as Executor of an estate, I want to make sure to support you best during this time by providing a little food for thought. How do you want this time to look? It's not easy losing a loved one and hopefully this episode provides emotional support in the form of considering your mindset during this time. And we found it is best practice to have ONE executor! Emily and I were both executors but needed to be present for every singing of all the papers and Emily bowed out. She said you do it, I trust you!  It's so much easier with ONE executor!! Here are the things we did to save time, money, and spare our relationships.  Protect Your Relationships We had about a 9 month heads up that my dad was terminally ill. I lived 3 ½ hours South of my dad but I made a conscious decision that while my dad was alive I would prioritize taking care of him. My sister would call and I would get in the car and head North. On those long drives I would think about the memories I wanted to create with my dad, the moments I wanted to share still, and burning questions I wanted to ask. This would be the time to finish up that Financial Binder if it wasn't completed. This way you know you are honoring their final wishes. But really? Complete it before this highly emotional time so you and/or your loved ones can focus on cherishing the final days. My Aunts and Uncles were so good to counsel us during this time in respect to what to expect in settling an estate and planning a funeral.  I also considered people I would be interacting with communicating things about dad's health, his passing, and the funeral details. Out of respect, even though they were divorced, we communicated his passing with our mom first and loved ones from there. It is also ok during this time to set boundaries. I went through some scenarios to think through. How will you interact with your less than favorite relative respectfully? Keep harmony in mind.  Processing Loss Based on my experience, it seems to be a female doing the bulk of the executor role. Her husband may be the actual Executor but in her supportive role she does most of the tasks. And so how do you, as a female, household manager, and maybe a parent, take time to process the passing of your loved one?You may need to cry it out in the shower. Maybe it becomes “long shower season.” I grieved my loss leading up to and weeks after his passing at my dad's house. I found when I was home my family needed me. But when I got up to Akron that was a place I had time to grieve.  But I encourage you to be selfish and take the time you need to process this loss.  How to Process the “Stuff” I have this indulgent thing I do. I lay in bed half awake, half “asleep” and I think. Normally I rearrange my calendar and think through any projects. During this time I thought about my dad, my relationships, and all the stuff in his home. It was all going to be Emily and I's. I didn't want all of it but room by room I envisioned what I might want.  Then, I developed this elimination process for Emily and I. She didn't have the bandwidth to sort through each room. I wanted to support her in this time and get the house content processed so we could move forward with selling his home. Each day, I'd tackle one room and set out all the items. We'd go through and claim the things we wanted. The rest would be offered to family and then to donations. This can be an emotionally charged tough season. Give yourself grace, keep harmony in mind, and for the love…finish your financial binders people!  EPISODE RESOURCES: The Sunday Basket® Financial Binder Sign Up for the Organize 365® Newsletter  Did you enjoy this episode? Please leave a rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Share this episode with a friend and be sure to tag Organize 365® when you share on social media!

Lets take a deep dive into the cult practices and borderline witchcraft Trump's new Surgeon General, Casey Means, likes to dabble in plus SCOTUS may be on the cusp of nuking Humphrey's Executor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Let's take a deep dive into the cult practices and borderline witchcraft that Trump's new Surgeon General, Casey Means, likes to dabble in. Plus, SCOTUS may be on the cusp of nuking Humphrey's Executor.

Trump was back in town, by which I mean my town, for his Big Crypto-Bribery Dinner. It's like an invasion! These people are terrorists! And they probably have the tattoos to prove it! And if they don't, we can make them have them, in totally undoctored photos! Anyway, the good news is, Trump took their money and screwed them. So that's nice. The only problem with that is, he's also gonna take your money and screw you. And if you take him to court and win, no you didn't. Constitushimal scholar Kristi Noem breaks the world record for the most wrong answer ever given to the question “What is habeas corpus?” Of course, the “real” constimatushimal scholars aren't doing much better. Maybe you've been hearing about this Humphrey's Executor thing? Well, here's what's up. Can't believe those relatively smart-ish law nerds are chucking it all… for this! The next round of deportation outrage. Not only is it dumber and more nonsensical, but it's yet another example of the defiance everybody was totally gonna do something about next time it happens! Just how dumb and nonsensical is it? Imagine this: It's, like, 500 billion nonsensical! That's a lot of nonsensical!

Take Shelter! As I record this coffee chat, our office is under a tornado watch! How timely? If anyone in our community finds themselves dealing with a natural disaster or unexpected event, I have created a space for us to come together and give or get support! The community was able to help victims of Hurricane Helene and now I want for all of us to be able to help or get help in those circumstances. But not all hard seasons of life are because of a natural disaster. So I am calling this a relief group. I want you to be able to raise your hand and be vulnerable to say “I need some help!” It's the Organize 365® Relief Group. I also know the value of having medical information accessible on paper in the event you need to evacuate quickly or go take care of a loved one. In episode 651 - Productive Disaster Preparation and Relief, I went over an Emergency Go Bag and a packed overnight bag/suitcase plus additional ways to just be prepared for unexpected events. In that Emergency Bag, I want you to have your medical information so I am giving away the first half of the Medical Binder. This is a way I feel I can help. Go to www.organize365.com/relief and download your free copy.  You will also get access to our community where you can connect with others who have gone through what you are going through. It's not through social media so you aren't in the public fish bowl where someone may see a post you don't want them to see, there aren't ads, cookies, or bots spying on you either. And you can ask for items you may need. The way I see it, we all have enough stuff. If someone needs something you have in storage, you can simply ship it to them. You may not really want to throw that thing away, you'd rather donate it. And nothing feels better than giving to someone in need, knowing you helped in some way.  Upcoming Episodes that will give you additional ways to be prepare: 652 - Organizing Your Role as a Power of Health Care 654 - Organizing Your Role as a Power of Attorney 655 - Organizing Your Role as the Executor of an Estate EPISODE RESOURCES: Get Your Mini Medical Binder and Join the Organize 365® Relief Group Sign Up for the Organize 365® Newsletter Did you enjoy this episode? Please leave a rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Share this episode with a friend and be sure to tag Organize 365® when you share on social media.  

Skanda Amarnath is the executive director of Employ America. Skanda returns to the show to discuss the standing of Humphrey's Executor, the prospects for the Fed's Framework Review, the case for NGDP Targeting, and much more. Check out the transcript for this week's episode, now with links. Recorded on April 16th, 2025 Subscribe to David's Substack: Macroeconomic Policy Nexus Follow David Beckworth on X: @DavidBeckworth Follow the show on X: @Macro_Musings Follow Skanda on X: @IrvingSwisher Check out our new AI chatbot: the Macro Musebot! Join the new Macro Musings Discord server! Join the Macro Musings mailing list! Check out our Macro Musings merch! Subscribe to David's new BTS YouTube Channel  Timestamps: (00:00:00) – Intro (00:02:01) – Humphrey's Executor (00:12:35) – The Fed's Framework Review (00:37:18) – Fed's Communication (00:47:36) – Productivity (00:59:07) – Outro

"Preview: Colleague Richard Epstein points to the SCOTUS 1935 Humphrey's Executor decision that stopped FDR from firing an independent board member -- similar to the present faceoff between POTUS and Fed Chair Jerome Powell. More" SCOTUS 1937

#SCOTUS: HUMPHREY EXECUTOR, 1935 AND JEROME POWELL.  RICHARD EPSTEIN, CIVITAS 1912 WILSON AND BRYAN

In over a hundred years, no president has ever fired the chair of the Federal Reserve … yet! President Donald Trump says he could show Jerome Powell the door, even though Powell says he's not going anywhere. We'll explain why it might all come down to the Supreme Court. Plus: the economic conditions that led to the American Revolution. And, a smile-worthy photo reminds us it's never too late to try new things!Here's everything we talked about today:“Trump: If I ask Powell to leave, ‘he'll be out of there'” by The HillHumphrey's Executor v. United States from Oyez“Recreating Paul Revere's ride from Boston 250 years later, 2 men prepare for landmark journey” from CBS News Boston“A Hall of Fame baseball player picked up photography in retirement. He captured one of the defining shots of the Masters.” by Business InsiderJoin us tomorrow for “Economics on Tap.” The YouTube livestream starts at 3:30 p.m. Pacific time, 6:30 p.m. Eastern.

In over a hundred years, no president has ever fired the chair of the Federal Reserve … yet! President Donald Trump says he could show Jerome Powell the door, even though Powell says he's not going anywhere. We'll explain why it might all come down to the Supreme Court. Plus: the economic conditions that led to the American Revolution. And, a smile-worthy photo reminds us it's never too late to try new things!Here's everything we talked about today:“Trump: If I ask Powell to leave, ‘he'll be out of there'” by The HillHumphrey's Executor v. United States from Oyez“Recreating Paul Revere's ride from Boston 250 years later, 2 men prepare for landmark journey” from CBS News Boston“A Hall of Fame baseball player picked up photography in retirement. He captured one of the defining shots of the Masters.” by Business InsiderJoin us tomorrow for “Economics on Tap.” The YouTube livestream starts at 3:30 p.m. Pacific time, 6:30 p.m. Eastern.

This week, Scott sat down with co-hosts emeritus Benjamin Wittes, Quinta Jurecic and Lawfare's new senior legal fellow James Pearce to talk through the week's biggest national security news stories, including:“Midnight Planes Going Anywhere.” The Supreme Court has weighed in on the Trump administration's decision to quickly fly dozens of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador with little to no meaningful process, holding that those detained had to be provided notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal, but only through habeas in their place of detention. Meanwhile, we are still awaiting the Court's final decision on whether a lower court can direct the executive branch to seek the return of another man who was removed to El Salvador by mistake. What will these decisions mean for the Trump administration's aggressive deportation policies?“All the King's Horses and All the King's Men, Won't Be Able to Put Humphrey's Together Again.” Watchers of the D.C. Circuit may have suffered whiplash this week, as an appellate panel reversed a district court's conclusion that the Trump administration's removal of statutorily protected members of the Merit Service Protection Board and National Labor Review Board was most likely unlawful, only for the panel itself to be reversed in short order by the whole en banc court. The issues now seem clearly poised for review by the Supreme Court. Is Humphrey's Executor and other case law preserving independent agencies toast? Or might the Court stop short of killing independent agencies altogether?“A Duty of Pander.” Attorney General Pam Bondi punished a Justice Department attorney this week after he admitted to a federal court that he had not been provided adequate answers to some of the court's questions. It's the latest in a parade of disciplinary actions accusing attorneys of disloyalty for engaging in candor with the federal courts over the confusion that some of the Trump administration's policies have caused. Is the Attorney General within her rights to crack down on these actions? And what impact will her demand for loyalty have on the Justice Department's relationship with the federal courts?For object lessons, Quinta recommended the movie "Margin Call" as a reflection on the last financial crisis, as we prepare for the next one. Ben brought attention to Russia's brutal and inhumane attack on a children's playground in Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelensky's hometown of Kryvi Rih, which underscores just how committed Russia really is to peace. Scott shared his latest home pizza discovery—a one hour no-knead recipe for pan pizza crust from King Arthur's Baking—as well as his next experiment: an all edge pieces pan pizza. And James gave a double-header object lesson, sharing his participation in the Baker to Vegas footrace and his reading of another story about something even more inhuman: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with co-hosts emeritus Benjamin Wittes, Quinta Jurecic and Lawfare's new senior legal fellow James Pearce to talk through the week's biggest national security news stories, including:“Midnight Planes Going Anywhere.” The Supreme Court has weighed in on the Trump administration's decision to quickly fly dozens of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador with little to no meaningful process, holding that those detained had to be provided notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal, but only through habeas in their place of detention. Meanwhile, we are still awaiting the Court's final decision on whether a lower court can direct the executive branch to seek the return of another man who was removed to El Salvador by mistake. What will these decisions mean for the Trump administration's aggressive deportation policies?“All the King's Horses and All the King's Men, Won't Be Able to Put Humphrey's Together Again.” Watchers of the D.C. Circuit may have suffered whiplash this week, as an appellate panel reversed a district court's conclusion that the Trump administration's removal of statutorily protected members of the Merit Service Protection Board and National Labor Review Board was most likely unlawful, only for the panel itself to be reversed in short order by the whole en banc court. The issues now seem clearly poised for review by the Supreme Court. Is Humphrey's Executor and other case law preserving independent agencies toast? Or might the Court stop short of killing independent agencies altogether?“A Duty of Pander.” Attorney General Pam Bondi punished a Justice Department attorney this week after he admitted to a federal court that he had not been provided adequate answers to some of the court's questions. It's the latest in a parade of disciplinary actions accusing attorneys of disloyalty for engaging in candor with the federal courts over the confusion that some of the Trump administration's policies have caused. Is the Attorney General within her rights to crack down on these actions? And what impact will her demand for loyalty have on the Justice Department's relationship with the federal courts?For object lessons, Quinta recommended the movie "Margin Call" as a reflection on the last financial crisis, as we prepare for the next one. Ben brought attention to Russia's brutal and inhumane attack on a children's playground in Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelensky's hometown of Kryvi Rih, which underscores just how committed Russia really is to peace. Scott shared his latest home pizza discovery—a one hour no-knead recipe for pan pizza crust from King Arthur's Baking—as well as his next experiment: an all edge pieces pan pizza. And James gave a double-header object lesson, sharing his participation in the Baker to Vegas footrace and his reading of another story about something even more inhuman: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Can a kamikaze-style sacrifice ever be morally justified? We explore the ethics of self-sacrifice in sci-fi scenarios and real life, along with deep (and wild) questions about vampires, psychiatric visions, Jesus’ second coming, and even the Rick Astley paradox. Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: Click Here Questions Covered: 02:23 – If someone were to kill everyone on earth to force Jesus’s second coming, would Jesus come? If the person did it to save everyone so they can all go to heaven, would this make them a good or bad person?  05:00 – Are heaven and hell customized for you and how you lived?  06:55 – If you sacrifice your life for God, do you go to hell for committing suicide?  14:45 – Could a killer whale get a taste for human flesh?  17:55 – I worked as a firefighter/EMT for a while and people prided themselves about having a stiff upper lip and a tough cynical personality. I got to thinking, some people are more docile, and some seem to pride themselves in having a rough edge. When we are perfected in heaven, will we all have the same disposition/temperament and just different talents and interests, or will our different dispositions remain?  22:01 – How will a body not be destroyed when living on earth forever? For example—If you fall off a cliff or get crushed?  28:57 – Can you please comment on the moral implications of the following? In Return of the Jedi, an A wing pilot gets shot down and plows his ship into the bridge of the Executor. Can a space pilot do this if death is a near certainty become a kamikaze? Or, in 2009's Star Trek movie, Captain Kirk's father stays behind and navigates the Kelvin on a collision course with the Romulan vessel to protect escaping shuttles. He sacrifices himself and the ship to save his son. Can the captain of a ship stay behind to again be a kamikaze to inflict heavy damage on somebody else and/or save other people if it means certain death?  32:59 – My Mom and sister are both nurses in a psych ward. They have had hundreds of patients who claim to see Angel’s and Demons. Some patients who claim they have seen them also knew personal information they shouldn’t have about Mom and Sister. Do you think these people are actually connected to the spiritual realm in a way we aren’t or is it just a mental illness?  38:08 – If a priest were to become a vampire, would he have to retire?  41:30 – If Santa Claus (not St Nicholas) were to die would he go to heaven?  44:01 – Will we see Wooly Mammoths in our lifetime? Will they really be Wooly Mammoths or something else that looks like them?  48:46 – How does the Rick Astley paradox work? Here's how it goes: If you ask Rick Astley for a copy of the movie Up he can't give it to you because he can't give you Up but if he doesn't give you Up he lets you down. This has been my hardest question since I heard it. What do you think?  50:54 – Sorry this is kind of a gross one. A few years back, there was a news story about a man who had his leg amputated and then had his friends over for a party where they ate tacos made from his amputated leg. While this is definitely strange, is it necessarily immoral? 

Live from the University of Michigan, Sarah Isgur and David French are joined by law professors Josh Chafetz, Aaron Nielson, Jennifer Mascott, and other special guests, to explain Humphrey's Executor and the executive power of removal. The Agenda: —Myers v. United States —Humphrey's Executor v. United States —Peekaboo —The “illimitable power of removal” —Was Madison right about “liquidation”? —Congressional accountability —Civil service reform —Justice Barrett Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices