Podcasts about Gertner

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

The initial time period where a TV remote control was developed was pretty short. And it shows how two different people perceive their work, and how that work is perceived differently over time by their employer. Research: Adler, R. “Control System.” Dec. 17, 1957. U.S. Patent Office. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/9a/fb/1a/619d2580b08526/US2817025.pdf AFX News. “COMPANY NEWS; MOTOROLA TO BUY ZENITH ELECTRONICS NETWORK SYSTEMS.” New York Times. July 20, 2000. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/20/business/company-news-motorola-to-buy-zenith-electronics-network-systems.html Benson-Allott, Caetlin. “Remote Control.” Bloomsbury Academic. 2015. Dowling, Stephen. “The Surprising Origins of the TV Remote.” BBC. Aug. 31, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180830-the-history-of-the-television-remote-contro Fox, Margalit. “Eugene Polley, Conjuror of a Device That Changed TV Habits, Dies at 96.” New York Times. May 22, 2012. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/business/eugene-t-polley-inventor-of-the-wireless-tv-remote-dies-at-96.html Gertner, Jon. “A Clicker Is Born.” New York Times Magazine. Dec. 30, 2007. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/magazine/30Adler-t.html Gregory, Ted. “Remote’s Inventor Hopes to Push Buttons of History.” Press of Atlantic City. Feb. 5, 2006. https://www.newspapers.com/image/926298372/?match=1&terms=eugene%20polley “Heritage.” Zenith. https://zenith.com/heritage/ “Man who glued TV watchers to the couch dies.” Cnn.com (via AP). Feb 16, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20070219040307/http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/02/16/obit.remote.control.ap/index.html “Now … a Flash of Light Without wires!” (Advertisement.) The Salt Lake Tribune. Nov. 20, 1955. https://www.newspapers.com/image/598655702/?match=1&terms=Flash-matic Polley, Eugene J. “Control System.” U.S. Patent Office. Sept. 8, 1959. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f7/02/b1/5716b40ac9c0fc/US2903575.pdf “Robert Adler.” National Inventors Hall of Fame. https://www.invent.org/inductees/robert-adler “Robert Adler - TV Wireless Remote.” Lemelson-MIT. https://lemelson.mit.edu/resources/robert-adler Schofield, Jack. “Eugene Polley Obituary.” The Guardian. May 23, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/may/23/eugene-polley Slodysko, Brian. “Eugene Polley dies at 96; inventor of wireless TV remote control.” May 23, 2012. https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-eugene-polley-20120523-story.html Stroh, Michael. “The Couch Potato’s Best Friend.” Baltimore Sun. Nov. 22, 2006. https://www.newspapers.com/image/173151815/?match=1&terms=eugene%20polley “TV remote control inventor Eugene Polley dies at 96.” BBC. May 22, 2012. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-18164200 “You have to see it to believe it!” (Advertisement.) Syracuse herald-Journal. Sept. 27, 1955. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1088093208/?match=1&terms=Flash-matic “Zenith Space Command …” Evening World Herald/ Dec. 26, 1956. https://www.newspapers.com/image/883665550/?match=1&terms=%22Space%20Command%22 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today:Retired federal Judge Nancy Gertner discusses a Department of Justice gone rogue, as top department officials suggest ignoring court orders.And, Michael Curry of the Mass League of Community Health Centers and NAACP discusses the impacts of conservative attacks on diversity.

In today's episode, I'm joined by the incredible Danielle Gertner - speaker, emcee, self mastery mentor and podcast host. We talked about radical ownership, redefining success, the pivot from hustle to self-mastery, and how embracing play can actually fuel your growth as a human and entrepreneur. Danielle brings the kind of raw, contagious energy that makes you want to reevaluate your routines and reconnect to what really matters. If you're craving a more joyful, embodied approach to business and life—this one's for you.

Danielle Gertner joins Something For Everybody this week. Danielle is a speaker, emcee, self-mastery mentor and community builder.  In this conversation, Danielle and I explore the themes of personal transitions, the complexities of relationships, the impact of grief on personal growth, and the transformative power of fitness. We discuss how understanding differences in communication styles can enhance relationships, the importance of community support in fitness, and the journey of building confidence through self-trust. The conversation emphasizes the significance of owning one's journey and the intertwined nature of grief and love in shaping our experiences. - Timestamps: 00:00 Navigating Transitions and Personal Growth 02:57 Understanding Relationships and Communication 06:00 The Impact of Grief on Personal Identity 11:56 Exploring Emotions: Relief, Hope, and Guilt 18:01 The Role of Grief in Life Transitions 23:51 Coaching Through Grief and Emotional Depth 34:06 Holding Space for Emotions 39:02 The Journey of Fitness and Movement 49:55 Building Confidence Through Self-Trust 54:35 Owning Your Shit: Radical Responsibility 56:21 Hyrox - See discounts for all the products I use and recommend: https://everybodyspod.com/deals/ - Shop For Everybody  Use code SFE10 for 10% OFF

From the eagle's nest, high above the ECW arena, this is the Extreme Three Way Dance! In this episode, JT, Jenny and Matt review the next three episodes of ECW television from January 2000! The troublesome trio pay tribute to the late Sabu and then talk about the fallout from Guilty as Charged, the ongoing issues between ECW and TNN, escalation between Cyrus and Gertner, a sick Mexican Death Match, an all time episode of ECW TV, Rob Van Dam being elevated to the main event and so much more! So jump on board, grab a chair and get ready to join this threesome for an extreme journey through time!

HYROX MC Danielle Gertner talks about owning your sh*t, moving with purpose, and firing people up on race day. Then, we meet the team behind MetriX—a new fitness racing format pulling a younger crowd than HYROX. Think: less running, more strength, and a party-first vibe. Big moves are coming for 2026. This show covers HYROX, DEKA, The Deadly Dozen, and the evolving world of fitness racing—featuring athletes, event directors, and industry insiders.

Today:Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner rings alarm bells on Trump's attack of the American legal system, comparing his intimidation and consolidation of power to that of Hungary's Viktor Orban.And, Cuban-born jazz pianist Zahili Zamora joins for Live Music Friday, at the Boston Public Library.

In episode 110, Ste is joined by Danielle Gertner (Hyrox Emcee, Founder of Warrior Women and Own Your Sh*t) for a deep discussion about grief, embracing fear, the meaning of success, and taking control of your life. Danielle also shares powerful wisdom on creating meaningful relationships and becoming a leader in all areas of your life.  Radical Health Radio is produced by Heart & Soil, a beef organ supplements company helping hundreds of thousands of people achieve radical health. Heart & Soil was founded by Dr. Paul Saladino, a double board-certified MD and founder of the animal-based eating philosophy. Visit heartandsoil.co to reclaim your birthright to radical health with the most nutrient-dense foods on the planet.

From dot-com dreams in Prague to cutting-edge 3D CPQ with AI, dive into the journey of Matthew Gertner, CEO of Salsita Software. Discover how his unique background in linguistics and computer science fuels a company revolutionizing custom product sales. We explore the rise of web-based CPQ, the power of 3D configurators, and how AI is shaping the future of online sales. Learn how Salsita is helping businesses, especially those in custom manufacturing, simplify complex pricing and reach global audiences. Tune in to hear about their innovative tech stack and why they believe AI-assisted configurator creation is the next big thing. Connect with Matthew and his team at salsita.ai. Salsita Software contact information: Website: https://salsita.ai/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewgertner/ 

Less than a month into Donald Trump's second term, his administration's aggressive restructuring of the government and flirtation with defying court rulings threaten to spark a constitutional crisis. "He could have done all of that lawfully, and instead what he's done is testing the limits of his power in a way we have never seen in this country," says retired federal Judge Nancy Gertner.During a press conference on Tuesday, Trump dismissed concerns about executive overreach and claimed he would respect court decisions. But legal experts warn his broad view of presidential power crosses long held boundaries and is propelling the country into a constitutional crisis. On this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing, Gertner, who is consulting on several cases challenging the administration's actions and is a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, and The Intercept's senior counsel and correspondent Shawn Musgrave discuss the federal courts' response so far and what it demonstrates about our system of checks and balances.“I hope that they will realize that one of the two checks on an aggressive president doing unlawful things is that the courts are functioning as a check on his power. I fear that the other takeaway is that Congress is not. The concern about Trump wiping out programs that Congress has approved is a concern that should bother every legislator — Republican or Democrat, it shouldn't matter. That is a core, foundational checks-and-balances issue. And the fact that there is not an outcry from Congress is troubling,” says Gertner.Musgrave adds that it is a real test of governmental structure. “We're in a moment that illustrates the fragility of the system of checks and balances that's held for a couple hundred years. The system that was set up in the Constitution isn't guaranteed; it has to be protected. And so far, it looks like it's going to be up to the courts to do that,” he says.Gertner says there is another check that isn't explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but is just as important. “The public will speak in two years in the midterm elections,” she says. “So the public, although it doesn't have a specific role in the next two years before we can vote again on national issues, the public is important here. I think that people should stand up if they think that what's going on is illegal and unconstitutional.”To hear more of the conversation, check out this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

DOGE is running wild in the District of Columbia. Chaos reigns supreme. Trump 2.0 has been frightening and it's all been happening so fast. But there are lots of people fighting back, as they try to slow the damage. And the courts are exactly where the pushback has been most fierce. One of the teams of people leading the charge includes former Judge Nancy Gertner, one of the many legal professionals suing the Trump administration. Judge Gertner's case is about the list of rank and file FBI agents threatened with retribution and the public disclosure of their names, because they did their jobs and prosecuted January 6th cases. Gertner is involved with a slew of cases from the State Democracy Defenders Fund. She talks with host Dahlia Lithwick about the many wins against the administration in court this past week, and whether they matter. Next, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to update us on the DOGE litigation and the Birthright Citizenship cases. 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

DOGE is running wild in the District of Columbia. Chaos reigns supreme. Trump 2.0 has been frightening and it's all been happening so fast. But there are lots of people fighting back, as they try to slow the damage. And the courts are exactly where the pushback has been most fierce. One of the teams of people leading the charge includes former Judge Nancy Gertner, one of the many legal professionals suing the Trump administration. Judge Gertner's case is about the list of rank and file FBI agents threatened with retribution and the public disclosure of their names, because they did their jobs and prosecuted January 6th cases. Gertner is involved with a slew of cases from the State Democracy Defenders Fund. She talks with host Dahlia Lithwick about the many wins against the administration in court this past week, and whether they matter. Next, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to update us on the DOGE litigation and the Birthright Citizenship cases. 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

DOGE is running wild in the District of Columbia. Chaos reigns supreme. Trump 2.0 has been frightening and it's all been happening so fast. But there are lots of people fighting back, as they try to slow the damage. And the courts are exactly where the pushback has been most fierce. One of the teams of people leading the charge includes former Judge Nancy Gertner, one of the many legal professionals suing the Trump administration. Judge Gertner's case is about the list of rank and file FBI agents threatened with retribution and the public disclosure of their names, because they did their jobs and prosecuted January 6th cases. Gertner is involved with a slew of cases from the State Democracy Defenders Fund. She talks with host Dahlia Lithwick about the many wins against the administration in court this past week, and whether they matter. Next, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to update us on the DOGE litigation and the Birthright Citizenship cases. 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

Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner argues we need to take a step back and look at the pattern of Trump's behavior in the context of authoritarian playbooks, not just individual executive orders. And, she tells us about her work with State Democracy Defenders.And, we zoom in on one issue with Sophia Hall of the Lawyers for Civil Rights, challenging Trump's order to get rid of birthright citizenship on behalf of pregnant undocumented women who fear their children will be born without a state. 

In this episode of THE MENTORS RADIO, Host Dan Hesse talks with multi-award-winning writer Jon Gertner about what many believe was the most innovative institution—public or private—in the world, Bell Labs. It is the topic of Gertner's first book, The New York Times best-seller, The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation. Bell Labs' inventions and discoveries are too long to list, but include the vacuum tube, the transistor, the silicon chip, the solar cell, microwave and fiber optic transmission, UNIX, and for you TV fans, even the Big Bang Theory.  A seasoned science and technology feature writer with The New York Times Magazine, Jon's writing and book reviews have also appeared in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Book Review, and Wired Magazine. Additionally, Jon is the author of The Ice at the End of the World: Greenland's Buried Past and Earth's Perilous Future, and he is currently working on a book about NASA's long-running Voyager Mission, tentatively titled How to Build Something the Lasts Forever. Listen to THE MENTORS RADIO podcast anywhere, any time, on any platform, click here! SHOW NOTES: JON GERTNER: BIO: BIO: Jon Gertner BOOKS: The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation, by Jon Gertner The Ice at the End of the World: Greenland's Buried Past and Earth's Perilous Future, by Jon Gertner X: @jongertner

BPR Full Show 6/25: Judge Gertner

Welcome to The Tara Talk, your go-to podcast for all things mindset + movement! Today Tara connects with Danielle Gertner to discuss how to own your shit, connect with your inner critic, and move through emotions. Danielle is a Speaker, Emcee, Self Mastery mentor, expert community builder, and podcast host who is on a mission to unlock the world's radical confidence with her signature Own Your Shit™️ method. She uses a unique blend of neurolinguistic programming, hypnosis, trauma-informed somatic work, story work, and primal play to help her clients make soul-shifting transformations that last a lifetime. Episode Highlights: Expressing and receiving loveHow to navigate griefMoving through emotions & letting yourself FEELThe power of connecting with your breathHow to own your shitBuilding community When you're not a “girls girl”Living in the feminine and masculine Becoming an entrepreneurRedefining happiness & success Whose story are you living?Chatting with your inner critic Working with all parts of youConnecting with movement again Are you ready to uplevel your health & fitness with Legion?  Use code TaraTalk for 20% off your first order and double loyalty cash back any order after that when you shop at LegionAthletics.comIf this episode resonated please leave a rate & review and share with friends! Your support means so much! Watch the episode on YouTube HERE. You can learn more about Danielle @daniellegertner and her programs, resources, and more at daniellegertner.comFollow along on @taralaferrara for no BS fitness + life advice. Follow along on @thetaratalk for episode updates and extra content. Sign up for the newsletter HERE and never miss an update!Work with Tara:1:1 coaching (apply to see if this is a fit for you)TL Method (get a FREE week of workouts!)

Best Of BPR: Judge Gertner On Trump Trial & Khalil Gibran Muhammad On DEI Criticism

In episode 11, Deanne Gertner shares her journey from a decade-long career dedicated to the arts to her current role in content marketing, highlighting the seamless integration of her passion for art into every aspect of her life. With a background in aiding arts nonprofits, curating art for corporate collections, and founding an experimental arts agency, Deanne has relentlessly worked to make art accessible to all, irrespective of financial or educational standing. The discussion unveils her projects that weave art into public spaces, transforming them into hubs of creativity and community.Transitioning from the art world, Deanne has embraced a career in marketing, specifically focusing on demystifying complex healthcare programs. Despite this shift, her core mission remains unchanged - to make valuable information accessible and understandable to everyone.Furthermore, the episode touches on Deanne's personal growth and self-care practices, including meditation, comedy, and insights from Esther Perel, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a balance between professional achievements and personal well-being. Deanne's story is about the power of creativity, adaptability, and the impact of art beyond conventional spaces, encouraging listeners to find and foster their creative spark in every facet of life.Guest Information:Connect with Deanne Gertner on Instagram, Linkedin, or her website.References:Hey Hue ArtHeinrich MarketingEsther PerelDon't forget to subscribe and leave a review if you enjoyed this episode.Credits and Acknowledgements:Hosted, Produced, and Edited by Heather Pridemore. Thank you for tuning into small acts of rebellion. Ready to start a revolution? Please share it with others who aspire to redefine success on their own terms.Don't forget to subscribe for more stories of personal and professional defiance. For additional content, follow us on Instagram @smallactsofrebellionpodcast & @PridemoreCoaching and visit us at PridemoreCoaching.com.Keep owning your story!

Danielle is a Speaker, Emcee and owner/operator of her Self Mastery Mentorship Courses. She introduced me to different vocabulary and perspective all throughout the episode. Learn what "self mastery" means to Danielle, what tools she used early in her journey as well as today to navigate hardship, and the lessons she's learning today. She's been a force in every room we've occupied together since I met her in 2022... find out more of why and how in this episode.   Connect with Danielle HERE. Apply for 1:1 Coaching with Claire HERE.

On this week's episode, Danielle Gertner, a self-mastery mentor, shares her transformative journey from seeking external validation to finding true empowerment through fitness and personal growth. She and Brianna delve into the importance of taking radical responsibility for one's life, discussing the power of internal validation and the transformative "ownership method." Danielle also explores the significance of embracing change, the role of shadow work in personal growth, and the impact of community and movement, as exemplified by her involvement in Warrior Women ATX. This episode is a treasure trove of insights for anyone seeking to deepen their journey of self-discovery and empowerment.More About Danielle:Driven to inspire people everywhere to take ownership over their excuses and unleash their fullest potential, in 2016, Danielle Gertner founded Gertner Grind, a platform that challenges the mainstream approach to wellness and inspires people to see the world as their gym.She was tired of trying to fit the idea of wellness that society had created so she decided to go on a journey to make wellness fit her world, no matter what that world looked like at the time. This sparked her passion for guiding others along the way to build a powerful foundation for their own lifelong transformation.Over the last four years, Danielle's passion to impact has only continued to evolve and today, she travels the world as an functional fitness coach, serving hundreds of people through her online transformation programs, customized workshops and retreats.Danielle believes that in order to live the life you have always imagined for yourself, you need to do only one thing - own your shit. And so she is on a mission to own her shit so unapologetically that anyone who comes across her message are inspired to as well.Danielle has worked with high school and college students, athletes, business professionals and those that fall somewhere in between.Danielle has also had the pleasure of sharing her message alongside brands such as Under Armour, PopSugar, Voyage MIA, GoSesh, RedCon1 and many more.The best way to summarize her coaching philosophy?Work to own your truths loud and proud. Once you do that, the world is yours.Connect with Danielle!Website: https://www.daniellegertner.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/daniellegertner/Podcast: https://www.daniellegertner.com/app-landing-pageConnect with Brianna!Instagram: @mombossinaustinLinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/briannademikeFollow the Podcast on Instagram: @badassbasicbitchLove the podcast? We would love if you would leave a review!Thank you to this week's sponsors! Shopify: Sign up for a $1/month trial period at shopify.com/bbb

This week Ashley Scott Meyers talks with Producer and Filmmaker Jordan Gertner. Our guest, Jordan Gertner is a Producer of well known movies such as Buffalo '66 (1998), Bully (2001) and Spring Breakers (2012). He talks about how he went from that to being the Writer/Director and Producer of the Action/Thriller Sheroes (2023). Among the […]

Former U.S. federal judge Nancy Gertner was appointed to the bench of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts by President Bill Clinton in 1994, retiring in 2011 to teach at Harvard Law School, and is working on a book featuring interviews with people she imprisoned. Gertner is in New Zealand for the Criminal Bar Association conference, discussing, among other things, Donald Trump's chances of being re-elected, should he be convicted.

“It's all about mental health and wellness.” - Lorne GertnerJeffrey Feldberg and Lorne Gertner discuss Lorne's extraordinary business success across multiple industries. As a futurist, Lorne has fine-tuned his craft to identify industry inflection points early to create market disruptions. As a result, Lorne is the benefactor of multiple successful liquidity events. Lorne has create over $3 billion in value for shareholders across multiple industries.Lorne shares his approach to business and from the trenches strategies that entrepreneurs must master to create massive success. Jeffrey goes beyond the headlines and has Lorne reveal his thinking, thought process, and how as leaders we can uncloak inflection points to grow a business and create a market disruption.Lorne shares his thesis on why psychedelic drugs will not only be legalized for general consumption, but forever change life and society as we know it.Click here to subscribe to The Deep Wealth Podcast to save time and effort.SELECTED LINKS FOR THIS EPISODEBooks: From Strength to Strength: Finding Success, Happiness, and Deep Purpose in the Second Half of LifeBooks: Fantastic Fungi: Expanding Consciousness, Alternative Healing, Environmental Impact // Official Book of Smash Hit DocumentaryVideo: Fantastic FungiVideo: How to Change Your MindCockroach Startups: What You Need To Know To Succeed And ProsperFREE Deep Wealth eBook on Why You Suck At Selling Your Business And What You Can Do About It (Today)Book Your FREE Deep Wealth Strategy CallResources To Have You Thrive And ProsperThe Deep Wealth Podcast brings you a wealth of world-class thought leaders who share invaluable resources and insights. Click the link below to access the resources, gear, and books that either our guests or the Deep Wealth team leverage to increase success:https://www.deepwealth.com/thriveContact Deep Wealth: Tweet @JeffreyFeldberg LinkedIn Instagram Subscribe to The Deep Wealth Podcast Email podcast[at]deepwealth[dot]com Help us pay it forward by leaving a review.Here's to you and your success!As always, please stay healthy and safe.

For Flick City episode 89 we have three interviews: The Last Rider's Greg LeMond and writer/director Alex Holmes, Sheroes filmmaker/writer Jordan Gertner, and Love Gets A Room writer/director Rodrigo Cortés.Sheroes is now available on Digital and hit theaters Friday, June 23. Rent/purchase Sheroes** on Amazon to support CinemAddicts!Love Gets A Room hit theaters Friday, June 23 and releases On Demand June 30.The Last Rider is exclusively in theaters as of Friday, June 23. Timestamps:(0:00) - Intro(12:50) - The Last Rider interview with Greg LeMond and Alex Holmes(23:16) - Sheroes interview with filmmaker/writer Jordan Gertner(34:54) - Love Gets A Room Trailer(36:44) - Love Gets A Room interview w/ director/writer Rodrigo Cortés**We receive a slight commission whenever you purchase through our Amazon links (I'm an Associates member). Rent/purchase your movies using our Amazon site stripe.**Support our CinemAddicts podcast by giving us a rating/review on Apple Podcasts!1.  Subscribe to our Deepest Dream YouTube Channel2. Like Our CinemAddicts Facebook Page.3. Join our CinemAddicts Facebook Group for daily movie recommendations!4. Check out our Deepest Dream website for more entertainment news and reviews5. Questions/comments email Greg Srisavasdi at editor@deepestdream.com.6. Our website for entertainment news, reviews, and podcast coverage is Deepest Dream: https://deepestdream.com/7. Email Bruce (brucepurkey@gmail.com) if you have movies you would love to put in the box!!8. Eric Holmes can be reached at hamslime@gmail.com9. Anderson's latest project Loaded for Bear: The Documentary: https://loadedforbeardoc.com/Atty's Antiques is on Facebook MarketplaceHAVE A CHAT WITH ANDY HERETHE COLD COCKLE SHORTSRULES OF REDUCTIONMORMOANTHE CULT OF CARANOGROUPERS TRAILERSupport the show

Writer & Director Jordan Gertner discusses with Jan Price his new action-adventure, "Sheroes," – available to watch on June 23, 2023, in select theatres and to purchase digitally!Isabelle Fuhrman (Orphan: First Kill), Sasha Luss (Anna), Wallis Day (Batwoman), and Skai Jackson (Bunk'd) star in the ultimate adrenaline-fueled thrill ride from a producer of Spring Breakers. When four thick-as-thieves friends arrive in Thailand for a hedonistic adventure, they quickly find themselves in over their heads when one of them is kidnapped by a notorious drug lord. As they fight to stay alive and protect each other, they'll employ their unique set of skills and unleash their fierce loyalty in a heart-pumping battle for survival. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jordan Gerner has been part of several films we've discussed on the show before including American Psycho. He's made his writing/directing debut with the new film Sheroes, the tale of four friends who go to Thailand and get into a mess of trouble. The film comes to streaming platforms and select theaters on June 23, 2023.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/show/the-projection-booth-podcast_2/support.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5513239/advertisement

Jordan Gerner has been part of several films we've discussed on the show before including American Psycho. He's made his writing/directing debut with the new film Sheroes, the tale of four friends who go to Thailand and get into a mess of trouble. The film comes to streaming platforms and select theaters on June 23, 2023.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5513239/advertisement

Esther Rochel Gertner combines her background in psychology and special education along with her life experience as a parent to empower parents and teachers to successfully advocate for their child's needs, whilst providing a safe and nurturing environment. She is an Educational Consultant with a masters in psychology and has over 25 -years of experience working with both the students directly and the team around the child. She is passionate about helping families and educators tap into the strengths and delights of each individual by integrating educational, social and emotional functioning to help the whole child. _______________________________________________________ Become a JOWMA Member! www.jowma.org  Follow us on Instagram! www.instagram.com/JOWMA_org  Follow us on Twitter! www.twitter.com/JOWMA_med  Follow us on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/JOWMAorg/ Stay up-to-date with JOWMA news! Sign up for the JOWMA newsletter! https://jowma.us6.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=9b4e9beb287874f9dc7f80289&id=ea3ef44644&mc_cid=dfb442d2a7&mc_eid=e9eee6e41e

Danielle Gertner teaches us how to own our $h1t. In This Episode: 05:40 - Early leadership 11:00 - If you're not a leader, you're not valuable 12:40 - What is water? 14:30 - Compassionate self observation 17:00 - Stuff 19:40 - The Amazon experience 24:40 - Fail fast, fail forward 26:30 - Gator grind 29:30 - Not fearing the "no" 32:50 - The Netflix of fitness 35:20 - Moving to Austin 37:20 - Honoring your sacred no 39:30 - What does a "F yes" feel like? 42:30 - Living to your potential 44:00 - People pleasing 49:00 - Bleed good energy 50:50 - Taking ownership over your life 52:20 - Rapid fire questions 01:05:00 - Where your fear is, your task is 3-Tip Tuesday's - Marketing Tips to Attract More Leads! From followers to clients in 7-easy steps. Get all links, resources, and show notes at: www.coreyhi.com/podcast/090

Today on Boston Public Radio: We started the show with listener reactions to the U.S. military shooting down multiple unidentified objects in North American airspace. Michael Curry discussed a new study that finds childbirth is deadlier for Black families even when they're wealthy; and a 15-year-old in Massachusetts staying in a hospital for 40 days because DCF couldn't place him. Curry is President and CEO of the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers. He's also a Member of the National NAACP Board of Directors, where he chairs the board's Advocacy & Policy Committee. Charlie Sennott discussed the string of unidentified objects shot down in US airspace; and the latest with the earthquake on the border of Turkey and Syria. Sennott is the founder and editor-in-chief of The GroundTruth Project. Retired judge Nancy Gertner discusses the Supreme Court weighing an ethics code; and former vice president Mike Pence getting subpoenaed related to the events on January 6, 2021. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Reverends Irene Monroe and Emmett Price discussed the Super Bowl, which made history for both quarterbacks being Black. Reverend Irene Monroe is a syndicated religion columnist and the Boston voice for Detour's African American Heritage Trail. Emmett G. Price III is founding pastor of Community of Love Christian Fellowship in Allston, the Inaugural Dean of Africana Studies at Berklee College of Music. Together they host the All Rev'd Up podcast. We closed the show with listener comments on whether restaurants should ban children, as one New Jersey establishment has just done.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We began the show by asking listeners whether they're optimistic or pessimistic for the year to come. Trenni Casey updated us on the status of Buffalo Bills player Damar Hamlin, who collapsed mid-game on Monday under cardiac arrest. She also shared her thoughts on broader safety concerns in the world of sports, from lacrosse to hockey. Casey is an anchor and reporter with NBC Sports Boston, and a BPR contributor. Juliette Kayyem weighed in on a recent attack in New York, where a man from Maine attacked police officers in Times Square with a machete. She also dissected Republican Rep. George Santos' various lies, and shared how a potential re-opening of a criminal investigation into his past by Brazilian officials could complicate his time in Congress. Kayyem is former assistant secretary for homeland security under President Barack Obama, and the faculty chair of the homeland security program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Gina McCarthy discussed the future of climate action in the U.S., and concerns over the Earth's dwindling resources in the midst of climate change. McCarthy served as the first ever White House national climate advisor, serving President Joe Biden, the EPA administrator under President Obama and is co-chair of Governor-elect Maura Healey's climate change transition policy committee. Nancy Gertner shared her thoughts on the final Jan. 6 committee hearing. Gertner is a retired federal judge, a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, and a BPR regular. Corby Kummer talked about the rise of drive-throughs, ghost kitchens, and delivery apps over the course of the pandemic, as well as The Cheesecake Factory's enduring legacy. Kummer is executive director of the Food and Society policy program at the Aspen Institute, a senior editor at The Atlantic, and a senior lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. We ended the show by talking with listeners about America's fascination with The Cheesecake Factory.

Today I'm joined by Ownership Coach Danielle Gertner. An Austin local, she is known for her magnetic personality. Today we dive deep, talking about grief and how to own all parts of what make you who you are. We also get practical in how to build a toolkit that allows you to grow beyond the boxes that you find yourself in life. Make sure you hit subscribe and leave a review, it helps us more than you know! Connect with Cory on IG: @corycamp Connect with Danielle on IG: @daniellegertner Tik Tok: @foreverathlete Forever Athlete website: www.forever-athlete.com Forever Athlete IG: @foreverathletellc --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/cory-camp/message

Today on Boston Public Radio: We opened our show with a call-in segment, asking listeners about their thoughts regarding the recent spike in COVID-19, flu, and RSV cases, and if they are choosing to mask again. Nancy Gertner discussed the latest news coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court and former President Donald Trump's legal woes. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Trenni Casey joined the show to talk about the sudden death of American journalist Grant Wahl in Qatar, and the return of Brittney Griner from Russia. Casey is a sports anchor and reporter for NBC Sports Boston. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu joined us for this month's edition of “Ask the Mayor.” She fielded questions from listeners at home and members of the audience at the Boston Public Library. Wu has been the mayor of Boston since her election in 2021. Comedian Chris Fleming joined the show ahead of his performance at the Wilbur on Dec. 17. We closed the show with Jim and Jared's thoughts regarding house guests, both how they deal with them and sharing their own stories of being guests.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We began the show by talking with listeners about the controversies surrounding this year's World Cup. Trenni Casey shared her thoughts on the process behind FIFA picking World Cup host countries. Casey is an anchor and reporter for NBC Sports Boston. Nancy Gertner discussed allegations against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito over leaking Court decisions. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Keith Lockhart previewed the Boston Holiday Pops' upcoming season. Lockhart is a conductor for the Boston Pops. Marcela Garcia talked about the push for Mass. lawmakers to make in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants who are state residents a priority. Garcia is a columnist for the Boston Globe, she also serves on the editorial board. John King updated us on the latest political headlines, focusing on Kari Lake suing Maricopa County officials in Arizona after her gubernatorial election loss. King is a CNN Chief National Correspondent, and the host of “Inside Politics.” We ended the show by talking with listeners about holiday office parties.

Today on Boston Public Radio:  We began the show by asking listeners how they feel about the state of extremism post-midterms. Trenni Casey shared her thoughts on Mike Tyson's new cannabis endeavor based off of his infamous ear-bite, mounting pressure on female athletes to lose weight, and the controversies about the upcoming World Cup in Qatar. Casey is an anchor and reporter for NBC Sports Boston. Dr. Katherine Gergen Barnett talked about the current RSV–respiratory syncytial virus–spike which has been straining pediatric emergency departments, and increasing mental health issues in kids. Gergen-Barnett is the vice chair of Primary Care Innovation and Transformation in the Department of Family Medicine at Boston Medical Center. Retired Federal Judge Nancy Gertner discussed the Supreme Court rejecting a challenge to ban bump stocks, and news that Trump wanted the IRS to investigate his rivals. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Jared Bowen talked about museums taking political action against protestors attacking paintings, as well as political leaders that have dipped their toe into art, and photojournalist Harry Benson's exhibit at the Addison Gallery of American Art. Bowen is GBH's executive arts editor. John King gave us his continued analysis of the midterm election results. King is CNN's chief national correspondent and the host of “Inside Politics.” We ended the show by asking listeners about their comfort food in the cold weather.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We opened the show by hosting an hour-long debate on Ballot Question 4, which asks voters if they want to keep or appeal a law in place allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. Sen. Brendan Crighton argued in favor of a Yes vote, which would keep the law on the books. Maureen Maloney, whose son was killed by an undocumented driver, represented the No side for Fair and Safe Massachusetts. Our listeners called in, gave their opinions and asked for clarification. National Security Expert Juliette Kayyem discussed the police response to the shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, this past May. CNN released new audio of a 10-year-old calling from inside the classroom, 40 minutes before police officers breached the room. Kayyem also discussed the arraignment of Paul Pelosi's attacker as well as the online misinformation that's been fueling political extremism. Kayyem is the former assistant secretary for homeland security under President Barack Obama, and the faculty chair of the homeland-security program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Wall Street Journal Tech Reporter Joanna Stern discussed Elon Musk's strategy to try to make Twitter profitable and what that could mean for the user experience. She also explained the technology behind Apple's new crash detection system. She ended by explaining some of the stumbles that Mark Zuckerberg has experienced in trying to push his Metaverse on the rest of the world. Joanna Stern is the Senior Personal Technology Columnist at the Wall Street Journal. Retired Federal Judge Nancy Gertner joined to talk about the implications of people staking out ballot drop boxes in Arizona and how it amounts to potential illegal voter intimidation. She provided updates on the multiple legal issues that the Trump family and their namesake company face in civil and criminal court. She ended by explaining the legal arguments behind affirmative action cases before the Supreme Court. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Chris Kimball of Milk Street discussed his new book "Cook What You Have," a guide on crafting cuisine from what's left over in your pantry. He also discussed his new show on Roku, “Milk Street Cooking School.” We ended the show by asking our listeners a very important question: do you brush your teeth before or after breakfast?

Even though you're not always responsible for what happens to you in your life, you ARE responsible for how you react to what happens and how you own it. Taking radical responsibility for your circumstances — no matter how sucky and unfair they may seem — is not always easy. But my guest in this episode of The Brave Table, Danielle Gertner, shows us how ownership leads to ultimate self-mastery and taking charge of your life, and why it's always worth it.  Danielle Gertner is an Ownership Coach, expert community builder, and podcast host who is on a mission to unlock the world's radical confidence with her signature Own Your Shit™️ method. She uses a unique blend of neurolinguistic programming, hypnosis, trauma-informed somatics work, story work, and primal play to help her clients make soul-shifting transformations that last a lifetime. With nearly 10 years of experience as a self-mastery mentor, habit and mindset expert, movement coach, and professional hype woman, Danielle has guided hundreds of clients to achieve breakthroughs and unimagined levels of confidence in short periods.  Danielle is also an emcee, workshop facilitator, host, and speaker for TEDx events, HYROX - a worldwide fitness competition, and several high school and collegiate leadership conferences. Danielle is also the co-founder of Warrior Women ATX - the largest workout community for women in Austin.Here's a taste of what we get into in this episode… - Why ownership is the key to changing your entire life - How to channel your pain into purpose  - How grief can be a compass to guide your life - How to use language to rewrite stories and shift limiting beliefs - How to stop people-pleasing and start self-pleasing If you loved this episode, make sure you check out…  - Grab Danielle's freebie for Brave Table listeners here: https://www.daniellegertner.com/radical-confidence-challenge - Find Danielle on Instagram @daniellegertner - Check out her Own Your Shit Self Mastery program - The Untethered Soul by Michael Singer - More on Cultivating Acceptance, Letting Go of Your Desires, and (Re)Creating Yourself in episode 61 with Dorota Stańczyk - More on Plant Medicine, Healing from Painful Loss, and Transitions in episode 44 with Joa Rivas - And check out episode 71, How To Find The Power to Eliminate Your Limiting Beliefs with Shelly Lefkoe Get your FREE That Sucked Now What Guidebook AND your 5-day healing practice to jumpstart healing your relationships when you order your copy of my new book here!

Today on Boston Public Radio: We began the show by opening phone lines, asking listeners about the large number of people in their 20s and 30s moving back in with their parents amid rising costs of living. Michelle Singletary shared her advice off of her latest personal finance columns, focusing on the looming deadline for public service loan forgiveness. Singletary is a personal finance columnist for the Washington Post. She writes the nationally syndicated column, "The Color of Money,"  which provides insight into the world of personal finance. Her latest book is: What To Do With Your Money When Crisis Hits: A Survival Guide. Mitra Kalita and Levi Rickert talked about covering politics and this year's midterm elections, as well as Indigenous Peoples' Day. Kalita is co-founder/ CEO of URL Media, a network of Black and Brown community news outlets that share content. She was most recently Senior Vice President at CNN Digital, overseeing the national news, breaking news, programming, opinion and features teams. Rickert is founder, publisher, and editor of Native News Online. He serves on the advisory board of the Multicultural Media Correspondents Association. Retired Federal Judge Nancy Gertner discussed mounting criticism over the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and previewed the Court's 2022-2023 session. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Mayor Kim Driscoll shared this month's Halloween happenings in Salem. Driscoll is the mayor of Salem, and is the 2022 Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor of Mass. Corby Kummer talked about rising costs at restaurants, and the latest “hot girl food”: deviled eggs. Kummer is executive director of the Food and Society policy program at the Aspen Institute, a senior editor at The Atlantic and a senior lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. We ended the show by asking listeners whether they're still dining out amid rising food costs.

The search for intelligence beyond Earth has long entranced humans. According to Jon Gertner, a regular contributor to The New York Times Magazine, this search has been defined “by an assumption that extraterrestrials would have developed radio technologies akin to what humans have created.”However, Mr. Gertner writes, “rather than looking for direct calls to Earth, telescopes now sweep the sky, searching billions of frequencies simultaneously, for electronic signals whose origins can't be explained by celestial phenomena.”What scientists are most excited about is the prospect of other planets' civilizations being able to create the same “telltale chemical and electromagnetic signs,” or, as they are now called, “technosignatures.”This story was written by Jon Gertner and recorded by Audm. To hear more audio stories from publications like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We started the show by hearing our listener's reactions to the news that NASA had successfully launched a satellite into an asteroid to test its ability to redirect the paths of objects in space. Trenni Casey discussed how Boston Celtics coach Ime Udoka's year-long suspension for having an inappropriate relationship with a female staff member impacted the official launch of the C's season. Casey also discussed how replacement coach Joe Mazzulla's relative inexperience could affect the team's prospects. Trenni is an anchor and reporter with NBC Sports Boston, and a Boston Public Radio contributor. Nancy Gertner discussed the upcoming Jan. 6 insurrection hearing scheduled to take place on Wednesday, Sept. 27, which was subsequently postponed due to the impending Hurricane Ian. Gertner also examined the six legal cases former President Donald Trump is facing and whether or not he could actually be criminally prosecuted. Nancy Gertner is a retired federal judge in Massachusetts and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Jared Bowen recounted his visit to the grand opening of the MIT Museum and whether art made with artificial intelligence is a toy or a weapon — or even art at all. He also covered the latest production of “La Bohéme,” which is playing at Boston Lyrical Opera. Jared Bowen is GBH's Executive Arts Editor and host of the TV series Open Studio, airing Friday nights on GBH 2. Corby Kummer discussed New York City's delayed attempts to ban foie gras; Katz and other “old-school delis” having their moment in the spotlight; and California's farm labor bill. Corby Kummer is executive director of the Food and Society policy program at the Aspen Institute, a senior editor at The Atlantic and a senior lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. John King discussed how polling is still fluid ahead of the upcoming midterms, creating a hazy picture for who will control Congress come January. John King is CNN's chief National Correspondent and anchor of Inside Politics.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We began the show by taking calls about how listeners feel about President Joe Biden's expected announcement on student loan debt forgiveness. Art Caplan discussed COVID-19 protocols in schools ahead of back to school season, the myriad of factors weighing on teens' mental health and the inadequacies of systems in place to provide help, and the calls for renaming monkeypox. Caplan is the Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor and founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU School of Medicine in New York City. Judge Nancy Gertner joined us for a session of “On the Docket,” in which she analyzed news about recent comments from Suffolk District Attorney candidate and City Councilor Ricardo Arroyo about previous sexual assault allegations against him, the findings from the FBI's raid of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home, and a recent hack and leak of voter information in Georgia. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Jeff Thielman and Farkhanda Ehssan discussed their work at the International Institute of New England resettling Afghan refugees, including how they try to help mitigate culture shock, how things are in Afghanistan for women now, and how the economy works for immigrants right now. Thielman is the President and CEO of the IINE, and Ehssan is a case specialist there. Shirley Leung shared her thoughts about the Wu administration's attempts to revive and take responsibility for the failures with the T, the Biden administration's recent announcement about student loan relief, and the draw of fully automated coffee shops. Leung is a business columnist for the Boston Globe. Dr. Nick Whitney discussed the uptick in shark activity on Cape Cod, including how climate change is having an impact on it, the importance of treating the ocean with respect, and the new “Sharktivity” app. Whitney is a senior scientist at the New England Aquarium's Anderson Cabot Center, where he also chairs the Fisheries Science and Emerging Technologies program. We ended the show by asking listeners if they've ever seen a UFO.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We began the show by asking listeners for their thoughts on the 4-day work week. Callie Crossley discussed the latest culture headlines, including Dr. Oz's viral crudité video, Brian Stelter leaving CNN, and the debate about the reigning Queen of Christmas. Crossley hosts GBH's Under the Radar and Basic Black. Judge Nancy Gertner weighed in on the ongoing investigations into Former President Trump, including fallout from the Jan. 6th committee hearings and the FBI raid of Mar-a-lago, as well as the indictment of 3 men in the killing of Whitey Bulger. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Then, we asked listeners when the right age to turn in your driver's license is. Andy Ihnatko shared the latest tech headlines, including privacy concerns surrounding Amazon buying Roomba, when it's time to buy a new iPhone and how to make your current one last longer. Ihnatko is a tech writer and blogger, posting at Ihnatko.com. Comedian Jessi Klein tells us about her new book, "I'll Show Myself Out: Essays on Midlife and Motherhood." Klein is a comedian, the head writer on Inside Amy Schumer, a former writer on Chappelle's Show, and voices Jessie on Netflix's Big Mouth.  Luisa Harris and Gregory Groover Jr. joined us to talk about the Mission Hill Arts Festival, and Groover was joined by Max Ridley and Tyson Jackson to play a few songs.Groover is the Assistant Chair of Ensembles at Berklee, and Harris is the founder of the Mission Hill Arts Festival.

Today on Boston Public Radio: Senator Elizabeth Warren talks about the MBTA, and the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, and took listener calls and questions on an installment of “Ask the Senator.” Retired Judge Nancy Gertner shares her thoughts on Attorney General Merrick Garland's address on the FBI raid at Mar-a-Lago, unpacking some of the legal statutes involved in the situation. She also discussed why it's important to our democracy to be able to trust judges, and more. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Jared Bowen talks about the latest in arts: the Met's new exhibit “Chroma: Ancient Sculpture in Color;” Now and There's new exhibit in front of Faneuil Hall, called “Summer Sets,” Patrick Kelly's “Runway of Love” at the PEM, and BJ Novak's “Vengeance;” and Leslie Dill's new exhibition “Wilderness” at the MFA. Bowen is GBH's executive arts editor and the host of Open Studio. Patty Bourrée explains the impact of Boston's Drag Queen Story Hour, and how recent white supremacist protests at the events have affected him. Patty Bourrée heads Boston's Branch of Drag Queen Story Hour. Brian O'Donovan and the Neave Trio join us ahead of their performance at the Rockport Celtic Festival to share a bit about their group and play a few songs. O'Donovan hosts GBH's A Celtic Sojourn. The Neave trio members are violinist Anna Williams, pianist Eri Nakamura, and cellist Mikhail Veselov. We end the show by asking listeners what they think about sales tax weekend.

Today on Boston Public Radio: Judge Nancy Gertner shares her take on the FBI raiding former President Donald Trump's home, explaining the legal conditions under which a raid like this could take place, and what kind of consequences could come from it. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Then, we took listener calls about the FBI raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago home. Trenni Kusnierek discusses Serena Williams' retirement, Tom Brady's tampering scandal, Aaron Rodgers' recent podcast conversation about his experience with ayahuasca and Brittney Griner's chances of coming home. Kusnierek is a reporter and anchor for NBC Sports Boston, and a weekly Boston Public Radio contributor. Chris Burrell shares insights from his investigative reporting on the inaccessibility of Massachusetts' beaches. Burrell is an investigative reporter for GBH News. The second story in his series “Barriers at the Beach” is out now. Then, we take listener calls about their experiences accessing the state's beaches. Corby Kummer talks about what the popularity of Hulu series "The Bear" says about the restaurant industry, responses to Cracker Barrel including a new Impossible Burger on their menu, the carbon dioxide shortage that is hampering the production of beer, and how inflation has made it necessary for more middle-class people to use food banks. Kummer is executive director of the food and society policy program at the Aspen Institute, a senior editor at The Atlantic and a senior lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. Sean Ellis and Victor Rosario share their experiences being wrongfully convicted and reentering society — including the stark lack of resources for exonerees — and the way that their work helps to try and help smooth the process of reentering society. Ellis and Rosario are a part of the Exoneree Network of the New England Innocence Project, which provides support and empowerment for people who were released from prison after having served time for wrongful convictions. John King discusses the FBI raid on former President Trump's home Mar-a-Lago, including his thoughts on whether the news helps or hinders Democrats ahead of the midterms. King is CNN's Chief National Correspondent and anchor of "Inside Politics,” which airs weekdays and Sunday mornings at 8 a.m. We end the show by asking listeners what the FBI would find if the agency raided their homes.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We begin the show by talking with listeners about their MBTA woes. Trenni Kusnierek talks about the possibility of Kevin Durant coming to the Celtics, Lebron James' comments about racism in Boston sports, and the latest in the running world and the state of the Red Sox. Kusnierek is a reporter and anchor for NBC Sports Boston, and a weekly Boston Public Radio contributor. Joan Donovan discusses her team's research affirming former President Donald Trump's role in the events of Jan. 6, including the new role of social media in inciting political violence. Donovan is the research director of Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy where she examines internet and technology studies, online extremism, media manipulation and disinformation campaigns. Judge Nancy Gertner shares her thoughts on the possibility of Trump being criminally charged based on the findings of the Jan. 6 committee. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Corby Kummer debates the merits of bringing back happy hour in Massachusetts, discusses the end of the Choco Taco, and explains why “50 Best Restaurants in the World” lists are problematic. Kummer is executive director of the food and society policy program at the Aspen Institute, a senior editor at The Atlantic and a senior lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. John King talks about the possibility of the U.S. Supreme Court repealing the right to contraception following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling, what to expect from the Jan. 6 hearings and President Joe Biden's plans to combat climate change. King is CNN's Chief National Correspondent and anchor of "Inside Politics,” which airs weekdays and Sunday mornings at 8 a.m. We end the show by asking listeners what their comfort shows are.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We start the show by asking listeners what should be done to protect abortion access in the U.S. Judge Nancy Gertner talks about the future of the Supreme Court post-Dobbs, including the direction Justice Clarence Thomas wants to take the court. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Corby Kummer discusses the climate of restaurant closings amid rising rents, and a new entirely mushroom-focused restaurant in Somerville. Kummer is executive director of the Food and Society policy program at the Aspen Institute, a senior editor at The Atlantic and a senior lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. Hal Brooks and Gina Femia discuss the unorthodox approach to theater that the Cape Cod Theatre Project takes, and how the process worked for Femia's new play. Brooks is the The Cape Cod Theater Project's artistic director, and Femia is a playwright, who wrote “The Violet Sisters.” Revs. Irene Monroe and Emmett Price share their thoughts on how religious leaders should organize to effectively advocate for abortion rights, and where the separation of church and state plays in that organizing. Monroe is a syndicated religion columnist and the Boston voice for Detour's African American Heritage Trail. Price is founding pastor of Community of Love Christian Fellowship in Allston, and the Inaugural Dean of Africana Studies at Berklee College of Music. Together they host the “All Rev'd Up” podcast. We end the show by asking people what they think about SCOTUS' decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Todays guest is on a mission to unlock the world's radical confidence with her signature Own Your Shit method: Compassionate Self Observation, Confident Ownership, and Radical Embodiment.   This three-step blueprint uses neurolinguistic programming, hypnosis, holistic psychology, the wisdom of trauma, story work, and primal play, allowing those who work with her to make soul-shifting transformations with ease — leaving them with the tools to ensure these changes last a lifetime.  Please help me welcome Danielle Gertner to Untamed & Unashamed! We discuss:  -her story -How we can use grief as a compass to a more radically honest life  -living a F yes! Life  -Mirror work  -How we can use the Own Your Shit method to take responsibility over our life  -How to love yourself thru feedback -How to own our money mindset -How jealousy can be used as a super power Affiliates: Gene keys Courses: https://genekeys.com/the-dream-arc/ref/1707/ Dame Sex Toys Dame Products • Get In Touch With Yourself CODE: “JADE” Pleasure Wands & Yoni eggs: https://waands.com/?ref=MvvfOgLGokjDQQ CODE “JADE” for a discount  CBD DirectHemp.com - A Better Way to CBD CODE “JADE” for a discount HigherDOSE Infrared products:  CODE “JADE75” for $75 off  Intro music:   Milckmusic.com @milckmusic on TikTok, ig, fb, Twitter  Somebodysbeloved.com Production: Reel In Motion  https://instagram.com/untamedandunashamedpodcast?utm_medium=copy_link See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Boston Public Radio: Attorney General Maura Healey shares her reaction to the recent Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v. Jackson. She also answers listeners' questions for this month's “Ask the Attorney General.” Healey is attorney general of Massachusetts and a candidate for governor. Judge Nancy Gertner discusses the future of abortions in the US, including the trials that will face those who seek abortion in light of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. Gertner is a retired federal judge and is now a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Callie Crosley discusses the fate of other court-granted rights in the face of the Supreme Court decision. Crossley hosts GBH's Under the Radar and Basic Black. Then we turned to President Joe Biden's address concerning the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling, and continued taking calls about the Dobbs decision. Dr. Cheryl Hamlin talks about her advocacy for abortion access, and the state of her practice and colleagues considering the Dobbs decision. Dr. Hamlin is an obstetrician and gynecologist at Mount Auburn Hospital in Cambridge. She travels to the Jackson Women's Health Organization in Mississippi each month to provide abortion care, the clinic at the center of the Dobbs v. Jackson case that is being decided by the Supreme Court. We return to listeners' reactions to the Dobbs decision. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley calls for the declaration of a public health emergency in light of abortion restriction. We end the show with more listener calls.