Podcasts about Executor

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.

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.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, akin to witnessing a seismic shift in the foundational landscape of American governance. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, aims to radically reshape the federal government, centralizing power in the White House and dismantling the independence of various federal agencies.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to consolidate control over the entire executive branch under direct presidential oversight. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this vision: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan to eliminate the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). These agencies, designed to operate without political interference, are now targeted for overhaul. The project dismisses these entities as "so-called independent agencies," reflecting a disdain for the checks and balances that have long been a cornerstone of American democracy[5].For instance, the Federal Trade Commission, a body established to protect consumers and promote competition, would no longer enjoy the autonomy granted by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court in *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*. Under Project 2025, the president would gain the power to remove FTC commissioners at will, should they not align with the president's agenda. This change would fundamentally alter the FTC's ability to function independently, potentially turning it into a tool for partisan policy implementation[5].The State Department is another focal point of this initiative. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, advocates for the dismissal of all State Department employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025. These positions would be filled by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles, bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is telling: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not name any[4].The implications of such reforms are far-reaching and profound. By centralizing power and eliminating the independence of federal agencies, Project 2025 would effectively create an "imperial presidency," where the president's authority is virtually unchecked. This would shatter the system of checks and balances that has been a bulwark of American democracy since its inception. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes, the re-election of a president aligned with these policies would have "immense" consequences, potentially undermining the very fabric of democratic governance[1].The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the White House would also play a critical role in this new landscape. Project 2025 proposes that OIRA should review and potentially revise or block rules and significant guidance issued by independent agencies. This would further erode the autonomy of these agencies, ensuring that all regulatory actions align with the president's agenda rather than serving the public interest[5].The potential impacts of these changes are alarming. Experts warn that such a concentration of power could lead to policies that are detrimental to workers, consumers, and the broader public. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking these executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, highlighting the devastating consequences for various sectors, from labor rights to environmental regulations[3].As we approach the milestones outlined in Project 2025, the stakes are high. The plan's proponents are pushing for significant changes to be implemented by January 20, 2025. This timeline underscores the urgency and the need for vigilant scrutiny from both policymakers and the public.In reflecting on Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a fundamental challenge to the democratic principles that have guided the United States. It is a call to action, a reminder that the balance of power in American governance is not a static entity but a dynamic system that requires constant vigilance and engagement. As we move forward, it is crucial to monitor these developments closely, ensuring that the checks and balances that safeguard our democracy are not dismantled in the name of executive power. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the coming months will have lasting implications for generations to come.

When it comes to estate planning, assigning roles to your loved ones can feel overwhelming, especially when you're considering putting one person in charge of multiple responsibilities. In this mailbag episode, Nick addresses a common listener question: Can my daughter be both the executor of my will and my healthcare power of attorney? Or is that too much for one person? Here's some of what we discuss in this episode:

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.

Send us a textIn this episode of the Women's Wealth Canada Podcast, host Glory Gray speaks with Shelley Essery, Certified Executor Advisor, author, and co-founder of The Empowered Estate. Shelley shares expert insights from her book, The Executor's Survival Guide, offering compassionate, step-by-step guidance for those who are—or may become—executors of an estate.Hosted by Glory GrayTake Action:Watch the webinars:

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, akin to watching a seismic shift in the foundations of American governance. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, aims to reshape the federal government in ways that are both profound and troubling.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to centralize control over the government in the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this vision: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan to dismantle the independence of various federal agencies. Agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which have historically operated with a degree of autonomy to ensure they are not swayed by political whims, are now in the crosshairs. These agencies, designed to be quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial bodies, are protected by Supreme Court precedents such as *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, which shields their commissioners from removal except "for cause." However, Project 2025 seeks to overrule this precedent, granting the president the power to remove these commissioners at will if they do not align with the president's agenda[5].The implications are far-reaching. For instance, the Department of State is slated for a significant overhaul. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, advocates for the dismissal of all leadership roles within the department before January 20, 2025. She intends to replace these positions with ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is stark: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president[4].This ideological purge is not limited to the State Department. The plan extends to other federal agencies, with the aim of ensuring that every branch of the executive government is directly answerable to the president. The White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is proposed to play a more intrusive role, reviewing and potentially revising or blocking rules and significant guidance issued by independent agencies. This would further erode the independence of these bodies, aligning them more closely with the president's policies[5].The potential consequences of such reforms are daunting. Experts warn that these changes could destroy the system of checks and balances that has been a cornerstone of American democracy. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes, the re-election of a president aligned with these policies could have "immense" implications, potentially leading to an "imperial presidency" with almost unlimited power to implement policies without significant oversight[1][5].The broader theme here is the erosion of democratic guardrails. Project 2025 represents a fundamental shift away from the principles of separation of powers and towards a more authoritarian form of governance. This is not merely a theoretical concern; it has real-world implications for workers, consumers, and the general public. For example, the Federal Trade Commission, which plays a crucial role in protecting consumers from unfair business practices, could find its ability to act independently severely curtailed. Similarly, the National Labor Relations Board, which safeguards workers' rights, might see its authority diminished under a president who prioritizes corporate interests over labor rights[5].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just about policy reforms; it is about redefining the very fabric of American governance. The project's proponents argue that these changes are necessary to streamline government and ensure efficiency, but critics see it as a power grab that undermines the democratic process.Looking ahead, the next few months will be critical. As the 2024 elections approach, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be tied to the outcome. If a president aligned with these policies is elected, we can expect a swift and decisive push to implement these reforms. The Supreme Court, which has already shown a inclination towards a stronger unitary executive, may play a pivotal role in upholding or challenging these changes[4].In conclusion, Project 2025 is a stark reminder of the ongoing battle for the soul of American democracy. As we navigate these uncharted waters, it is imperative that we remain vigilant and informed, ensuring that the principles of democracy and the rule of law are not sacrificed at the altar of political ideology. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the coming months will have lasting impacts on the nation's trajectory.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, not just because of the far-reaching implications it holds for American governance, but also due to the sheer ambition and controversial nature of its proposals. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, aims to reshape the federal government in a way that centralizes executive power to an unprecedented degree.At the heart of Project 2025 lies the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to consolidate control over the entire executive branch under the direct authority of the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this vision: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan to dismantle the independence of various federal agencies. Agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which were designed to operate without political interference, are now targeted for overhaul. These agencies, established by Congress to ensure impartial oversight, are dismissed by Project 2025 as "so-called independent agencies," reflecting a disdain for the checks and balances they provide[5].For instance, the FTC, a quasi-judicial body, has long been shielded from presidential removal by the Supreme Court's ruling in *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*. However, Project 2025 seeks to overrule this precedent, allowing the president to remove commissioners at will if they do not align with the president's agenda. This move would fundamentally alter the operational independence of these agencies, subjecting them to direct presidential control[5].The Department of State is another focal point of Project 2025's reforms. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, advocates for the dismissal of all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025. These positions would then be filled by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles, bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is telling: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president[4].The implications of such changes are profound. By placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, Project 2025 would effectively create an "imperial presidency," where the president has almost unlimited power to implement policies without the traditional checks and balances. This would not only undermine the independence of critical agencies but also erode the democratic guardrails that have long protected American governance[5].Experts and critics alike warn of the devastating consequences of these proposals. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking Project 2025's executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, highlighting the potential for "devastating consequences for workers, the environment, and public health"[3].The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) has also sounded the alarm, noting that Project 2025 could lead to the termination of up to 1 million federal workers. This would not only disrupt essential government services but also have a crippling impact on the lives of those employees and their families[2].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a seismic shift in how the federal government could operate. The project's proponents argue that it is necessary to streamline government and ensure loyalty to the president's agenda. However, critics see it as a dangerous erosion of democratic principles and the rule of law.Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial. As the 2025 deadline approaches, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be decided through a combination of legislative actions, judicial challenges, and public discourse. Whether this initiative succeeds in reshaping American governance or is thwarted by opposition, one thing is certain: the future of the U.S. government hangs in the balance.In the words of the American Civil Liberties Union, "the re-election of Donald Trump as president will have immense implications" for the success of Project 2025. As the nation navigates this critical juncture, it is imperative that we remain vigilant and engaged, ensuring that the principles of democracy and the system of checks and balances are protected for generations to come[1].

Special Counsel Amelia McKellar joins us to talk trends and developments in antitrust, artificial intelligence and digital regulation in Asia -- what's going on in key jurisdictions and what it all means for Australia. Plus our new-look ministry and what's next for competition and regulation, a win for the ACCC in the Qteq qase and new wrinkles in the Spotless and Ventia action, steak sauce in schools and roaming commissioners in the US. All this and Humphrey's Executor with co-hosts Moya Dodd and Matt Rubinstein. Meet the Gilbert + Tobin Competition, Consumer + Market Regulation team Email us at edge@gtlaw.com.au Support the show: https://www.gtlaw.com.au/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy 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!

Are you working probate leads but struggling with how to qualify them without sounding pushy?

What exactly happens when someone names you as the executor of their will? Far more than most people realize. In this enlightening discussion, attorneys Jane Dearwester and Haley Matson of McIntyre Elder Law pull back the curtain on the executor's role during their "Probate Boot Camp."The conversation begins with a crucial concept many new executors don't fully grasp: the fiduciary duty. This legal standard means you're handling someone else's money with the highest level of care and responsibility. Jane and Haley walk listeners through the practical first steps every executor must take, from locating the original "wet ink" will to formally applying for appointment through the court. Even with a perfectly drafted will, the probate process requires court supervision and specific legal procedures.Things get particularly interesting when the attorneys dive into the complications that frequently arise. Will contests from disgruntled heirs, allegations of undue influence, questions about testamentary capacity, and disputes over property distribution can transform a seemingly straightforward process into years of litigation. Drawing from their extensive experience in estate litigation, they share real-world scenarios where executors found themselves caught in family disputes while trying to fulfill their duties. The discussion covers executor compensation (up to 5% of estate assets), when to seek professional help, and how even simple estates typically take 6-12 months to settle.Whether you're currently serving as an executor, have been named in someone's will, or are planning your own estate, this conversation provides invaluable insights into the probate process. Have questions about your specific situation? McIntyre Elder Law offers free consultations at their offices in Hendersonville, Charlotte, and Shelby. Visit mcintyrederlaw.com to learn more about probate and other elder law topics.

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Upholds CFPB Funding StructureOn May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., upholding the constitutionality of the CFPB's funding structure. In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that the agency's funding—drawn from the Federal Reserve and not subject to annual congressional appropriations—does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the Constitution permits flexibility in funding mechanisms so long as they are authorized by law and subject to congressional oversight in some form. The ruling affirmed the CFPB's continued ability to regulate financial institutions and enforce consumer protection laws independent of Congress's annual budget process.The decision marked a significant moment in the Court's treatment of agency independence, particularly at a time of renewed scrutiny of the administrative state. It was widely seen as a victory for supporters of the CFPB, which had faced ongoing legal and political challenges since its creation under the Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. However, the case also highlighted the growing skepticism among certain justices—and lawmakers—about the breadth of agency power and accountability.Just one year later, the CFPB's future is again uncertain. With a new administration openly hostile to the agency and legislative efforts underway to curtail its authority or restructure its funding, the May 2024 decision is already being treated as legal history. Though the Court upheld the agency's funding, the political battle over the CFPB continues, casting doubt on how long the victory will stand.Intel appeared before the EU General Court to contest a €376 million ($421.4 million) antitrust fine reimposed by the European Commission. The fine stems from the Commission's 2009 decision, which originally imposed a record €1.06 billion penalty for Intel's actions that allegedly excluded rival AMD from the market. Though the General Court overturned the majority of that decision in 2022, it upheld a portion related to so-called “naked restrictions”—payments Intel made to HP, Acer, and Lenovo to delay or halt rival products between 2002 and 2006.Intel's lawyer argued that the violations were narrow and tactical, not part of a broader strategy to shut out competitors from the x86 chip market. He claimed the Commission failed to weigh the limited impact of those actions and imposed a disproportionate and unfair fine. The Commission countered that the fine followed established guidelines and represented only a small fraction of Intel's turnover, asserting that the penalty was appropriate for the seriousness of the conduct.Both sides asked the court to settle the matter by determining the appropriate fine amount. A decision is expected in the coming months.Intel spars with EU regulators over $421.4 million antitrust fine | ReutersA federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments in a case that could redefine the U.S. president's authority to remove officials from independent federal agencies. The Trump administration is appealing two lower court decisions that reinstated Democratic officials Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after President Trump removed them without cause earlier this year. Both boards, which handle labor disputes and federal employee appeals, were left effectively inoperable due to vacancies, with thousands of pending cases.The administration argues that statutory protections limiting removals to “cause” violate the president's constitutional authority to control the executive branch. Trump's legal team claims that these agencies exercise substantial executive power and therefore should not be shielded from presidential oversight. The case may hinge on Humphrey's Executor, a 1935 Supreme Court decision that upheld removal protections for members of independent commissions like the Federal Trade Commission. Conservative judges—including two Trump appointees on the panel—have recently questioned the decision's reach.If the D.C. Circuit sides with Trump, it could pave the way for a broader dismantling of long-standing removal protections across federal agencies. Legal scholars warn that such a move could give the president far-reaching power to reshape regulatory policy by purging officials who don't align with the administration's agenda. The case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court and lead to a narrowing or overruling of Humphrey's Executor.US court to weigh Trump's powers to fire Democrats from federal agencies | ReutersData obtained through a public records request reveals that recent buyouts at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have significantly reduced staffing in key divisions. The legal, investment management, and trading and markets offices experienced workforce cuts ranging from 15% to 19% over just a few weeks. Regional offices in Chicago and Denver also saw nearly 20% reductions. Overall, the SEC's full-time staff has shrunk by 12% since January, with agency chair Paul Atkins recently noting a 15% decrease since October.These losses come amid ongoing hiring freezes and budget restrictions. While Atkins suggested that some roles may be refilled, he did not dismiss the possibility of more cuts. In parallel, more than 20 SEC employees have been reassigned to focus on contract reviews, part of a broader cost-cutting initiative coordinated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), led by Elon Musk. DGE has expanded its presence at SEC headquarters and is reviewing agency operations, particularly IT services, to identify further savings.The SEC declined to comment on the staffing reductions, though a spokesperson confirmed it is working with DGE to improve efficiency. The full implications of these staffing losses for the agency's regulatory functions remain unclear.SEC buyouts hit legal, investment offices hardest, data shows | ReutersMeta Platforms asked a federal judge to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust lawsuit, arguing the agency failed to prove that the company holds an illegal monopoly in social media. The case, which centers on Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, claims these deals were aimed at neutralizing potential rivals and maintaining dominance in the market for apps used to share personal updates. The FTC wants to unwind those acquisitions, made more than a decade ago.Meta contends the FTC's case falls short of demonstrating that WhatsApp and Instagram posed meaningful competitive threats at the time of acquisition. The company pointed to internal evidence suggesting WhatsApp had no ambitions to become a social media platform and that Instagram actually thrived post-acquisition. Meta also argued the FTC has not clearly defined the relevant market, especially given competition from platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, and X (formerly Twitter), which Meta says all compete for user attention.The company maintains that its products face constant pressure to evolve in response to competitors. If the judge denies Meta's request to end the case now, the trial will continue through June with closing arguments and final briefs expected afterward. A ruling that Meta holds an illegal monopoly would trigger a second trial focused on potential remedies.Meta asks judge to rule that FTC failed to prove its monopoly case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is the second movement of Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich”, which translates roughly to “Strongly moving, but not too fast. Quite leisurely.” Composed in the late 1880s and premiered in 1889, Mahler's First Symphony marked his audacious entry into the world of symphonic writing. At once expansive and deeply personal, the work fuses Romantic tradition with the beginnings of Mahler's own, modern voice.The second movement—our focus this week—is a rustic Ländler, an Austrian folk dance form, reimagined with orchestral power and emotional complexity. Mahler, who was born in 1860 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew up surrounded by folk tunes and military marches, and these influences saturate this section of the symphony. It opens with swagger and energy, driven by bold rhythms and a sense of physicality, before softening into a slower trio section that offers brief lyrical repose.Though the movement has a lively surface, its contrasting moods reflect Mahler's signature ability to intertwine the playful and the profound. His orchestration here is vivid but never ornamental—every detail serves a dramatic or emotional purpose. Mahler's symphonies often contemplate mortality, memory, and transcendence, but this movement reminds us that he could also be joyful, ironic, and grounded in the sounds of real life.By the time of his death in 1911, Mahler had transformed the symphony into a vessel for existential expression, bridging the 19th and 20th centuries. This movement from his First hints at all that was to come. As our week closes, we leave you with this music—bold, earthy, and unmistakably Mahler.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich.” 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

Today's podcast features Stephen Calkins, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and former General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”). President Trump recently fired, without good cause, the two Democratic members of the FTC, leaving only two Republican members as commissioners. He did this even though the FTC Act provides that a commissioner may be fired by the President only for good cause and that the commission is to be governed by a bi-partisan 5-member commission This is the third time in the past few weeks that Trump has fired without good cause democratic members of other federal agencies; the other two being the National Labor Relations Board (The “NLRB”) and the Merit Selection Protection Board (The “MSPB”). The statutes governing those two agencies, like the FTC Act, allow the President to fire a member of the governing board for good cause only. The fired members of all three agencies initiated lawsuits in federal district court for the District of Columbia, seeking mandatory preliminary injunctions requiring those agencies to reinstate them with back pay. We discuss the status of the two lawsuits and how the outcome will turn on whether the Supreme Court will apply or overrule a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphrey's Executor, which held that the provision in the Constitution allowing the President to fire an FTC commissioner for good cause only did not run afoul of the separation of powers clause in the Constitution. Conversely, the Supreme Court will need to determine whether the Supreme Court opinion in Seila Law, LLC V. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should apply to these two new cases. In Seila Law, the Supreme Court held on Constitutional grounds, that the President could fire without good cause the sole director of the CFPB even though the Dodd-Frank Act allowed the President to fire the sole director of the CFPB for good cause only. Until this gets resolved, the FTC will be governed only by two Republican commissioners who will constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting official business. Professor Calkins explains how a Supreme Court ruling in these two new cases upholding Trump's firing of the Democratic members of the agencies could enable the President to fire without good cause members of other multiple-member agencies, like the Federal Reserve Board. We then discuss the status of the following four final controversial FTC rule, some of which were challenged in court: the CARS Rule, the Click-to-Cancel Rule, the Junk Fee Rule, and the Non-Compete Rule. We also discuss the impact of President Trump's Executive Order requiring that all federal agencies, including so-called “independent” agencies, must obtain approval from the White House before taking any significant actions, like proposing or finalizing rules. Then, we discuss the status of enforcement investigations and litigation and whether any of them have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the FTC under Trump 2.0, whether any new enforcement lawsuits been filed, and what they involve. We discuss our expectation that the FTC will be a lot less active in the consumer protection enforcement area during Trump 2.0. We then discuss the impact on staffing because of DOGE-imposed reductions-in-force. Finally, we touch upon the status of pending antitrust enforcement lawsuits. Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel, hosts the discussion.

Tune into our weekly LIVE Mastermind Q+A Podcast for expert advice, peer collaboration, and actionable insights on success in the Probate, Divorce, Late Mortgage/Pre-Foreclosure and Aged Expired niches!Today's episode of the All The Leads Mastermind podcast began with a discussion on executor liability, covering the limited legal risks involved and emphasizing transparency, timely action, and the importance of distinguishing administrative guidance from legal advice. The conversation moved into strategies for avoiding liability, including documenting decisions and working closely with probate attorneys, especially in markets with higher litigation risk. The group then tackled challenges around reverse mortgages in probate, particularly in California, noting automatic foreclosure timelines and the need for clear communication with heirs. This led to a deeper dive into navigating attorney resistance when a personal representative wants to work with an agent the attorney hasn't chosen. Coaches advised agents to maintain strong client relationships, remain professional, and take a long-term view on building trust with attorneys. Later, the hosts outlined the essential vendor network categories every probate agent should develop: white-collar professionals, blue-collar service providers, and niche specialists like estate sale companies and appraisers. The episode concluded with a heartfelt discussion about a new agent's commission dispute, offering broader lessons on setting expectations, respecting mentorship, and maintaining a resilient mindset early in your career.Previous episodes: AllTheLeads.com/probate-mastermindInterested in Leads? AllTheLeads.comJoin Future Episodes Live in the All The Leads Facebook Mastermind Group:  https://facebook.com/groups/alltheleadsmastermindBe sure to check out our full Mastermind Q&A Playlist Support the show

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

William Kovacic and Jon Nuechterlein on Agency Independence and Humphrey's Executor by Technology Policy Institute

On this episode of A Hard Look, we examine the President's power to remove independent agency officials. That's right! We're going all the way back to the 1935 landmark decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Helping us navigate this discussion is Daniel Wolff, Partner at Crowell & Moring LLP, and head of the firm's administrative law practice. Tune in for an in-depth discussion on the future of executive authority and regulatory independence.Show Notes:Editorial Note: This episode was recorded in March 2025, and the status of any ongoing cases discussed may have changed since then.Recommended ReadingsHumphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)Myers v. United States (1926)Morrison v. Olson (1988)Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020)Trump v. Wilcox (2025)This episode was produced by the Administrative Law Review Senior Technology Editor, Sophia Navedo-Quinones, and Technology Editor, Victoria Paul.If you have any questions about this episode or the podcast, or if you would like to propose a topic or guest, please e-mail us at ALR-Sr-Tech-Editor@wcl.american.edu.Visit our website:  https://administrativelawreview.org/podcast-a-hard-look/

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica talks with USA Today reporter Erin Mansfield about the Trump administration's efforts to overhaul and reduce the federal workforce. They discuss the administration's push for greater executive power, the agencies hit hardest by job cuts, and the impact on public services like education and food safety. Erin also explains the legal battles unfolding over these changes, including the significance of the landmark Supreme Court case Humphrey's Executor and the future independence of federal agencies. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:The Federal Workforce Under the Trump Administration: Trump's administration is undertaking dramatic efforts to reshape--and notably reduce--the federal workforce, prompting widespread job insecurity, potential displacements, and structural overhauls throughout the government.Who is Affected by Federal Workforce Reductions: Erin outlines which agencies are most impacted. Socially-oriented agencies—like the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, USDA, and the Environmental Protection Agency—face the brunt of the cutbacks, while national security, law enforcement, and immigration agencies are largely exempt. She clarifies that massive cuts are not equally distributed across all departments. Real-Life Impacts of Workforce Reduction: Jessica and Erin discuss how these changes might touch everyday Americans. Reductions in the workforce could affect everything from food safety inspections and educational grant administration to public health services and climate research—potentially making certain public services less effective or slower.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica@_erinmansfield

VLOG April 22 Sarah Palin v NYT closings 10:30 am; Nadine Menendez guilty. Tekashi #6ix9ine gun DNA: https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/courtroom-extra-tekashi-6ix9ine-chargedJeffrey Epstein executor case quietly dropped https://www.patreon.com/posts/courthouse-rape-127148363UN China links, Burma to SG @AntonioGuterres https://www.innercitypress.com/ungate1burmabishopguticp042125.html

"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.

With presidential power over independent federal agencies entering uncharted territory, SCOTUS may soon revisit its 1935 Humphrey's Executor decision, which limits a president's ability to fire members of independent federal agencies—such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—without cause. SCOTUS could choose to:          reaffirm Humphrey's Executor,          overturn the case entirely (potentially politicizing agency functions), or          define “for cause” and allow terminations only under stringent circumstances. Former Acting Attorney General of the United States and Epstein Becker Green attorney Stuart Gerson explores how a shift in this precedent could impact employers, industries, and the balance of federal power. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw386 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

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.

In this video, learn powerful prospecting techniques, effective lead generation strategies, and how to master probate and estate planning to grow your real estate business. From skip tracing tips to handling foreclosure scenarios, discover insights and actionable steps from industry experts.

In this Episode of the Secure Your Retirement Podcast, Radon and Murs discuss what it truly means to be an executor of an estate. Joined by special guest Dave Hutton, an estate attorney with Wealth.com, they break down the essential estate executor duties and estate executor responsibilities in a way that is easy to understand. Whether you've been named an executor or are considering who to appoint, this episode provides the foundational knowledge you need to make informed decisions.Listen in to learn about the critical role of an executor, how the probate process works, and how thoughtful estate planning for retirement can help streamline the experience for your loved ones. With practical tips, real-world scenarios, and an overview of executor compensation, this episode demystifies a process many find overwhelming.In this episode, find out:· What is an executor and what powers they actually have· The difference between executor vs trustee and why both may be needed· How the probate process works and why avoiding it might be preferable· Key executor responsibilities like settling debts, managing distributions, and navigating court timelines· The importance of aligning your estate plan with your retirement strategyTweetable Quotes:“You don't want the court to pick your executor—you want to make sure the right person is chosen by you.” – Radon Stancil“Being an executor comes with power, but also responsibility—and that includes understanding the law and honoring the will.” – Murs TariqResources:If you are in or nearing retirement and you want to gain clarity on what questions you should be asking, learn what the biggest retirement myths are, and identify what you can do to achieve peace of mind for your retirement, get started today by requesting our complimentary video course, Four Steps to Secure Your Retirement!To access the course, simply visit POMWealth.net/podcast

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? 

In a crossover episode with the Rethinking Antitrust podcast, Bilal Sayyed (TechFreedom) questions our host, Corbin Barthold, about the presidential removal power, Humphrey's Executor, the FTC, the Trump administration, and the Roberts Court.Note: This episode was recorded just before the D.C. Circuit issued an interlocutory order addressing the president's removal power as to the NLRB and the MSPB. That order is in the links.Links:Rethinking AntitrustThe Executive Power of RemovalWill the Supreme Court Face Down Trump or Flinch?The D.C. Circuit's post-recording order

Stepping into a leadership role means shifting your focus from completing tasks to creating results with and through others.It's normal to feel uneasy about leaving behind the responsibilities that once defined and even created your success. You're supposed to stop doing what you enjoyed and what helped you achieve your current position.Intuitively, that may just feel wrong. It may actually even seem like a threat to your credibility.We hear this from the new managers we support all the time.In this week's episode of The Manager Track, Ramona Shaw explains the real challenges and rewards of moving from a doer to a leader. Drawing from her own experience and from coaching over 200 new managers, she offers practical advice on how to embrace your new role even when you feel inclined to hang on to your IC work.In this episode, Ramona covers:- Task Execution vs. People Leadership: Understand the key differences between getting things done and leading people.- Adapting: Learn why stepping back from hands-on work might feel like a loss and learn ways to overcome that feeling.- Practical Strategies: Find everyday tips to adjust your mindset from simply doing to truly leading.If you've jumped into tactical work and avoided the leadership-type things on your to-do list or questioned if you're doing enough as a new leader, this episode is for you.Learn how accepting a bit of discomfort can help you let go and lead more effectively.Check it out HERE.Watch it on YouTube.— RESOURCES MENTIONED —- Learn how to turn your 1-on-1 meetings from time wasters, awkward moments, status updates, or non-existent into your most important and valuable meeting with your directs all week. Learn more at: https://archova.org/1on1-course- Have a question or topic you'd like Ramona to address on a future episode? Fill out this form to submit it for her review: https://ramonashaw.com/ama- Schedule a strategy call with Ramona HERE. - Grab your copy of Ramona's best-selling book 'The Confident & Competent New Manager: How to Rapidly Rise to Success in Your First Leadership Role': amzn.to/3TuOdcP— OTHER EPISODES YOU MIGHT LIKE —- Episode 239 - Delegating: It's actually about managing yourself- Episode 63 3 Tips to Influence Other People's Decisions- Episode 61 From IC to Manager - 4 Main Shifts— WHAT'S NEXT? —Learn more about our leadership development programs, coaching and workshops at archova.org.Grab your copy of Ramona's best-selling book 'The Confident & Competent New Manager: How to Rapidly Rise to Success in Your First Leadership Role': amzn.to/3TuOdcPIf this episode inspired you in some way, take a screenshot of you listening on your device and post it to your Instagram Stories, and tag me @ramona.shaw.leadership or DM me on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/ramona-shawAre you in your first manager role and don't want to mess it up? Watch our FREE Masterclass and discover the 4 shifts to become a leader people love to work for: www.archova.org/masterclassLove the podcast and haven't left a review yet? All you have to do is go to ramonashaw.com/itunes and give your honest review. Thanks for your support of this show!* Disclaimer: Shownotes may contain affiliate links. That means that I am awarded a small commission for purchases made through them, at no added cost to you.* Disclaimer: Shownotes may contain affiliate links. That means that I am awarded a small commission for purchases made through them, at no added cost to you.

As news hit that President Trump fired the two remaining Democratic FTC Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, many questions abound. Would Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter contest the dismissals? (The answer there appears to be an emphatic yes – with both issuing statements last night to that effect.) Another question: what will this mean for day-to-day operations at the Commission, including the ability for the FTC to continue to bring actions with only two commissioners of the same party, an issue my colleagues cover in a separate post here. Perhaps the biggest question – with implications far beyond our day-to-day advertising and privacy worlds – is whether the Supreme Court will overturn its 1935 decision in Humphrey's Executor, a decision that forms the longstanding constitutional basis for independent agencies like the FTC, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), amongst others. As a refresher, in Humphrey's Executor, the Supreme Court upheld the insulation of FTC Commissioners from removal by the President at will – finding that the Constitution permits Congress to create expert independent agencies led by a group of principal offers removable only for cause.

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

The Trump administration is outsmarting the activist judges attempting to block his America-first agenda. From a recent case involving a pro-Hamas activist's arrest to ongoing lawsuits designed to undermine presidential authority, I talk about how the administration is staying one step ahead. I also dive into the Supreme Court case that could overturn decades of judicial activism, specifically the 1935 Humphrey's Executor decision, and restore the president's full power over the executive branch. It's a battle for the future of executive authority, and the stakes couldn't be higher.--Visit http://TNUSA.com/Turley or call 1-800-958-1000 for a free consultation. Their experts will walk you through a few simple questions to see how much you can save.*The content presented by sponsors may contain affiliate links. When you click and shop the links, Turley Talks may receive a small commission.*Go Beyond the Video—Get Exclusive Show Notes Delivered Straight to Your Inbox https://turley.pub/turleyrecapHighlights:“Since President Trump reclaimed the executive branch in January, more than 50 lawsuits have been filed to halt his America-first efforts, with a number of activist judges ruling to restrain those efforts.”“The Justice Department is aiming straight for the heart when it comes to judicial activism against the executive branch. Pam Bondi's Justice Department is formally urging the Supreme Court to overrule the decision that's allowing these judicial activists to make their silly rulings in the first place.”Timestamps: [00:21] A leftwing activist judge blocked pro-Hamas activist Mahmoud Khalil's deportation [02:49] How the Trump administration outfoxed the leftwing judiciary[05:25] Trump's plan to end judicial activism against the executive branch--Join my new Courageous Conservative Club and get equipped to fight back and restore foundational values. Learn more at http://fight.turleytalks.com/joinThank you for taking the time to listen to this episode. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review.FOLLOW me on X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalksSign up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts to get lots of articles on conservative trends: https://turleytalks.com/subscribe-to-our-newsletter**The use of any copyrighted material in this podcast is done so for educational and informational purposes only including parody, commentary, and criticism. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015). It is believed that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

Is presidential power out of control, or are we witnessing a necessary correction to decades of bureaucratic overreach? When Trump fired Wilcox from the NLRB, it sparked a constitutional showdown about who really controls the executive branch - and the implications could reshape American governance. Studio Sponsor: Cardio Miracle - "Unlock the secret to a healthier heart, increased energy levels, and transform your cardiovascular fitness like never before.": https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart Ryan Silverstein, JD candidate at Villanova University, breaks down the explosive battle between President Trump and the administrative state. This isn't just about one firing - it's about whether unelected bureaucrats can create policy without accountability to voters. As Silverstein explains, independent agencies have operated with unprecedented autonomy for decades, making rules that affect millions of Americans without direct oversight. The conversation dives deep into constitutional principles, exploring how the "unitary executive theory" challenges a century of precedent established since Humphrey's Executor in 1935. With the conservative Supreme Court already chipping away at administrative power through recent cases like Loper Bright and SEC v. Jarkesy, this confrontation could be the tipping point that fundamentally restructures government. Brian and Ryan examine the troubling delegation of congressional authority to unelected experts - a trend dramatically accelerated during COVID when "trust the science" became a mandate rather than guidance. The discussion highlights how both parties have abdicated their responsibilities, preferring to pass accountability to faceless bureaucracies rather than face voters with difficult policy choices. The stakes couldn't be higher: will this case return policy-making to elected officials, or will the administrative state continue growing unchecked? As Silverstein concludes, the founders envisioned citizens actively involved in governance, not passively accepting expert rule. This episode offers a master class in constitutional principles and a wake-up call about the future of American democracy. ❤️ Order Cardio Miracle (https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart) with code TBNS at checkout for 15% off and take a step towards better heart health and overall well-being!

In today's episode of the Second in Command podcast, Cameron explores the intricacies of leadership roles within organizations, focusing on a key executive position that plays a crucial part in shaping company culture and driving success: the COO. You'll learn how this role evolves over time, with special attention paid to the dynamics between two critical figures at the helm of a company. A nuanced understanding of the relationship between these roles is presented, highlighting how their partnership can lead to strategic growth and organizational harmony.Cameron also touches on how businesses in different sectors require varying approaches to leadership, especially when scaling operations and managing teams. You'll hear how the right leadership structure can determine a company's trajectory, from fostering innovation to maintaining operational efficiency.This episode brings into focus the importance of mentorship and growth, not only at the top but within the entire leadership team.If you've enjoyed this episode of the Second in Command podcast, be sure to leave a review and subscribe today!In This Episode You'll Learn:The different types of COOs and their specific roles within a company. (1:25)The seven different types of COO, including the Executor, the Change Agent, the Mentor, etc. (3:56)Other roles often filled by the COO, including the Adult in the Room, the Follower, the Devil's Advocate, etc. (14:56) The evolution of the COO's role, and why it often serves as the 'glue' in the organization, with culture as the source of adhesion. (24:45)And much more...Resources:Connect with Cameron: Website | LinkedInGet Cameron's latest book "Second in Command: Unleash the Power of Your COO"Get Cameron's online course – Invest In Your Leaders

Hosts Renato Mariotti and Asha Rangappa are joined by NYU Professor Rachel Barkow to talk about the eroding institutional checks on executive power, and ask: Can Trump fire anyone at will? Subscribe to our Patreon here, where paid members will get access to exclusive portions of this show: patreon.com/reallyamericanmedia Asha, a Yale University National Security Law professor and former FBI special agent, and Renato, a former federal prosecutor, analyze just how far Trump has gone to undermine the independence of executive agencies. Rachel Barkow, author of Justice Abandoned: How the Supreme Court Ignored the Constitution and Enabled Mass Incarceration, breaks down the Supreme Court's pivotal role in defining the limits of executive power—and explores the historical precedents that Trump's “Unitary Executive Theory” is threatening to undo.  Rachel walks us through the story of Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a seminal 1935 Supreme Court case that affirmed Congress's authority to restrict the President's power to remove certain agency officials. Barkow also discusses how the modern Supreme Court could change these longstanding precedents, and lead to a cascade of global consequences. But it's not just about what's happening in Washington—the trio decodes how these transformations might impact average Americans, industries, and financial institutions. And we'll tackle the broader human implications and moral considerations of these power plays.  Be sure to join us next week, as Asha and Renato continue to bring clarity to the complex issues that can't be boiled down to simple sound bites, right here on It's Complicated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Donald J Trump's administration has been invoking a conservative legal theory as justification for his claim to possess king-like presidential powers. This new supercharged version of the “unitary executive theory” may just be extreme enough to stick in the craw of some conservative judges, but will it find a warm welcome when it inevitably lands at the Supreme Court, and should we brace for the overturning of 90 years of precedent in the form of Humphrey's Executor? Dahlia Lithwick's guest this week is Deepak Gupta, former senior counsel at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and founding principal of Gupta Wessler LLP, who is now fighting for his former colleagues' jobs in court. Gupta is also representing Gwynne A Wilcox, the Chair of the National Labor Relations Board who was fired via late night email in a case that is likely headed to SCOTUS.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Donald J Trump's administration has been invoking a conservative legal theory as justification for his claim to possess king-like presidential powers. This new supercharged version of the “unitary executive theory” may just be extreme enough to stick in the craw of some conservative judges, but will it find a warm welcome when it inevitably lands at the Supreme Court, and should we brace for the overturning of 90 years of precedent in the form of Humphrey's Executor? Dahlia Lithwick's guest this week is Deepak Gupta, former senior counsel at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and founding principal of Gupta Wessler LLP, who is now fighting for his former colleagues' jobs in court. Gupta is also representing Gwynne A Wilcox, the Chair of the National Labor Relations Board who was fired via late night email in a case that is likely headed to SCOTUS.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Donald J Trump's administration has been invoking a conservative legal theory as justification for his claim to possess king-like presidential powers. This new supercharged version of the “unitary executive theory” may just be extreme enough to stick in the craw of some conservative judges, but will it find a warm welcome when it inevitably lands at the Supreme Court, and should we brace for the overturning of 90 years of precedent in the form of Humphrey's Executor? Dahlia Lithwick's guest this week is Deepak Gupta, former senior counsel at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and founding principal of Gupta Wessler LLP, who is now fighting for his former colleagues' jobs in court. Gupta is also representing Gwynne A Wilcox, the Chair of the National Labor Relations Board who was fired via late night email in a case that is likely headed to SCOTUS.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Divided Argument is live from the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, hosted by the Northwestern Federalist Society! We discuss whether we are in the middle of a constitutional crisis, the coming demise of Humphrey's Executor, and various shadow docket developments. Then we preview the issues at stake in next month's oral argument about firearms liability, Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.