Podcasts about Humphrey

The Historical Context of Humphrey's Executor: Colleague Richard Epstein analyzes the historical context of Humphrey's Executor, explaining how the administrative state grew from the 1930s, detailing FDR's attempt to politicize independent commissions and the Supreme Court's justification, arguing that while constitutionally questionable, long-standing prescription has solidified these agencies' legal status over time. 1955

SHOW 12-12-2025 THE SHOW BEGINS IN DOUBTS ABOUT 2026.2 Las Vegas Venues, California Rail, and Disney's AI Investment: Colleague Jeff Bliss reports that Las Vegas's Allegiant Stadium is now a top-grossing venue while many resorts are dropping unpopular fees, discussing California's new rail line to Anaheim, mismanagement of the Pacific Palisades fire, and high gas prices, additionally covering Disney's investment in OpenAI and its new luxury community, Cotino. Nvidia's Jensen Huang and the AI Revolution: Colleague Brandon Weichert praises Nvidia's Jensen Huang as a pivotal geopolitical figure driving the AI revolution, comparing AI's growth to the railroad boom and predicting long-term economic benefits and massive opportunities for construction and energy sectors as the US builds infrastructure to support data centers. Business Resilience and AI Tools in Construction: Colleague Gene Marks reports on business resilience in Austin despite tariff concerns and describes a safety conference in Fargo where AI tools were a focus, explaining that AI and robotics like Boston Dynamics' Spot are supplementing rather than replacing workers in construction, helping address severe labor shortages. Health Reimbursement Arrangements and AI's Economic Potential: Colleague Gene Marks advocates for Health Reimbursement Arrangements, noting they allow small businesses to control costs while employees buy their own insurance tax-free, also discussing AI's potential to double economic growth and advising businesses to ignore doomsday predictions and embrace tools that enhance productivity and daily life. Lancaster County's Economic Divide and Holiday Retail: Colleague Jim McTague reports from Lancaster County, highlighting the economic divide between flush Baby Boomers and struggling younger generations, observing strong holiday retail activity exemplified by crowded venues like Shady Maple and a proliferation of Amazon delivery trucks, suggesting the economy remains afloat despite challenges. La Scala's Season Opening and Milan's Christmas Atmosphere: Colleague Lorenzo Fiori describes attending the season opening at La Scala, featuring a dramatic Russian opera that audiences connected to current geopolitical tensions, also noting the festive Christmas atmosphere in Milan and Prime Minister Meloni's continued, albeit non-military, support for Ukraine. SpaceX IPO Rumors and EU Space Regulations: Colleague Bob Zimmerman discusses rumors of a SpaceX IPO and new scientific strategies for using Starship for Mars exploration, reporting on the Pentagon's certification requirements for Blue Origin's New Glenn and critiquing proposed EU space laws that could impose bureaucratic hurdles on international private space companies. Mapping the Sun's Corona and Rethinking Ice Giants: Colleague Bob Zimmerman details scientific advances including mapping the sun's corona and rethinking Uranus and Neptune as having rocky interiors rather than just ice, mentioning discoveries regarding supernova composition, the lack of supermassive black holes in small galaxies, and new images of Mars' polar ice layers. "The Incident" of 1641 and Charles I's Failed Plot: Colleague Jonathan Healey narrates "The Incident" of 1641, a failed plot by Charles I to arrest Scottish Covenanter leaders, explaining that the conspiracy's exposure and Charles's subsequent denial destroyed his political standing in Scotland, forcing him to concede power to the Scottish Parliament and weakening his position before the English Civil War. The Prelude to the English Civil War: Colleague Jonathan Healey discusses the prelude to the English Civil War, detailing the power struggles between Charles I and the Commons and Lords, explaining the execution of the King's advisor Strafford, noting Charles's regret and the rising influence of reformists who feared royal tyranny and supported impeachment. The Junto and Puritan Influence in Parliament: Colleague Jonathan Healey describes the political geography of London, introducing the "Junto," a reformist party coordinating between Parliament's houses, analyzing the influence of Puritans and key opposition figures like John Pym and Mandeville who strategically challenged Charles I's authority regarding church reform and arbitrary taxation. The Grand Remonstrance and Popular Politics: Colleague Jonathan Healey explains the "Grand Remonstrance," a document used by the Junto to rally public support against the King, highlighting how rising literacy and the printing press fueled popular politics in London, while also discussing Queen Henrietta Maria's political acumen and Catholic faith amidst the growing conflict. Critiquing Isolationism and the Risks of Disengagement: Colleague Henry Sokolski critiques isolationist arguments, comparing current sentiments to pre-WWII attitudes, warning against relying solely on missile defense bubbles and discussing the distinct threats posed by Russia and China, emphasizing that US disengagement could lead to global instability and unchecked nuclear proliferation. Saudi Uranium Enrichment and Proliferation Risks: Colleague Henry Sokolski discusses the risks of allowing Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium, fearing it creates a bomb-making option, warning that making exceptions for Saudi Arabia could trigger a proliferation cascade among neighbors like Turkey and Egypt, undermining global non-proliferation efforts amidst rising tensions involving Russia and NATO. The Historical Context of Humphrey's Executor: Colleague Richard Epstein analyzes the historical context of Humphrey's Executor, explaining how the administrative state grew from the 1930s, detailing FDR's attempt to politicize independent commissions and the Supreme Court's justification, arguing that while constitutionally questionable, long-standing prescription has solidified these agencies' legal status over time. Presidential Power and Independent Agency Dismissals: Colleague Richard Epstein discusses current Supreme Court arguments regarding presidential power to fire independent board members, referencing actions by both Trump and Biden, critiquing the politicization of agencies like the FTC under Lina Khan and warning that unchecked executive authority to dismiss advisory boards undermines necessary checks and balances.

OA1215 - We examine why the potential merger of Warner Brothers Discovery with either Netflix or Paramount would almost be certainly illegal under better circumstances before mourning the imminent loss of the independence of the one government agency which is supposed to stop this kind of thing. What exactly is the Federal Trade Commission, and why was destroying it a top priority for Project 2025? We then take a closer look at this week's oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, in which the Supreme Court's MAGA majority is poised to turn the FTC and dozens of other independent agencies into tools for Trump's corruption and graft. Finally, in today's footnote: why is an actual government website hawking the Trump Gold Card, and can the President really just make up a completely new way to give anyone with one million dollars a new path to US citizenship? Trump v. Slaughter oral arguments (12/8/2025) Humphrey's Executor v. US, 295 US 602 (1935) Federal Trade Commission Act (1914) Rebecca Slaughter's SCOTUS brief Trumpcard.gov Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

HEADLINE Presidential Authority Over Independent Boards: The Supreme Court's Trump v. Slaughter Possible Decision GUEST Professor Richard Epstein, Civitas Institute 50 WORD SUMMARY Epstein analyzes the Supreme Court's Trump v. Slaughter case, examining presidential authority to hire and fire independent board members. The decision traces to Humphrey's Executor (1935). Epstein predicts Justice Kavanaugh's uncertain vote due to his prior distinction between single-person agencies and panels. This ruling represents a momentous decision determining presidential executive power scope. 1889

The parents of Jesse Butler's victims are breaking their silence — and what they're revealing is devastating. Jesse Mack Butler, 18, of Stillwater, Oklahoma, pleaded no contest to 11 felony charges including attempted rape, rape by instrumentation, and domestic assault by strangulation against two teenage girls. One victim was strangled until she lost consciousness and required surgery on her neck. Her doctor told her she was 30 seconds away from dying. Police found video on Butler's phone of him strangling the other victim. He faced 78 years in prison. Instead, a judge granted him "youthful offender" status — and he received community service, counseling, and supervision until his 19th birthday.  No prison. No sex offender registry. If he complies, his record gets wiped clean. The victims' families say they were never consulted about the plea deal. Both girls were willing to testify. That choice was taken from them. Butler's father is the former Director of Football Operations at Oklahoma State University. The judge who granted youthful offender status holds two degrees from OSU. No direct impropriety has been proven — but the families and protesters are demanding answers. "Community service for this type of crime, that's nothing," one victim's father told Nightline. "People get that for minor crimes." State Rep. J.J. Humphrey is calling for a grand jury investigation. Protesters have surrounded the courthouse at every hearing. And the parents have one message for America: "Love shouldn't hurt." #JesseButler #Stillwater #Oklahoma #TrueCrime #JusticeForSurvivors #YouthfulOffender #NoJailTime #DomesticViolence #TeenDatingViolence #LoveShouldntHurt Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The parents of Jesse Butler's victims are breaking their silence — and what they're revealing is devastating. Jesse Mack Butler, 18, of Stillwater, Oklahoma, pleaded no contest to 11 felony charges including attempted rape, rape by instrumentation, and domestic assault by strangulation against two teenage girls. One victim was strangled until she lost consciousness and required surgery on her neck. Her doctor told her she was 30 seconds away from dying. Police found video on Butler's phone of him strangling the other victim. He faced 78 years in prison. Instead, a judge granted him "youthful offender" status — and he received community service, counseling, and supervision until his 19th birthday.  No prison. No sex offender registry. If he complies, his record gets wiped clean. The victims' families say they were never consulted about the plea deal. Both girls were willing to testify. That choice was taken from them. Butler's father is the former Director of Football Operations at Oklahoma State University. The judge who granted youthful offender status holds two degrees from OSU. No direct impropriety has been proven — but the families and protesters are demanding answers. "Community service for this type of crime, that's nothing," one victim's father told Nightline. "People get that for minor crimes." State Rep. J.J. Humphrey is calling for a grand jury investigation. Protesters have surrounded the courthouse at every hearing. And the parents have one message for America: "Love shouldn't hurt." #JesseButler #Stillwater #Oklahoma #TrueCrime #JusticeForSurvivors #YouthfulOffender #NoJailTime #DomesticViolence #TeenDatingViolence #LoveShouldntHurt Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In this episode, Thomas Berry of the Cato Institute and Jed Shugerman of the Boston University School of Law join the recap the oral arguments from Trump v. Slaughter and debate whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources  Thomas Berry, Brief of the Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (10/17/2025)  Jed Shugerman, Brief Amicus Curiae of Professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman in Support of Respondents (11/14/2025)  Jed Shugerman, “The Indecisions of 1789: Inconstant Originalism and Strategic Ambiguity” (2023)  Jane Manners and Lev Menand, “The Three Permissions: Presidential Removal and the Statutory Limits of Agency Independence” (2021)  Marbury v. Madison (1803)  Myers v. United States (1926)  Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)  Morrison v. Olson (1988)  Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the ⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠ Explore ⁠Pursuit: The Founders' Guide to Happiness⁠ ⁠Sign up⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming ⁠live program⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠YouTube⁠ Support our important work:   ⁠⁠⁠Donate

Guest is Mark Chenoweth, president and chief legal officer of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, to discuss the oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Monday, Dec. 8, in Trump v. Slaughter, an important case about the constitutional authority of the president over the so-called “independent” agencies like the Federal Trade Commission set up by Congress. For the Christmas season, classic movie review of the 1945 film, “Christmas in Connecticut,” a romantic comedy starring Barbara Stanwyck, Dennis Morgan, and Sydney Greenstreet.

The 2025 International Mars Society Convention convened at the University of Southern California this October for three days of passionate discussion about humanity’s future on the red planet. Speakers explored science, policy, technology, AI, synthetic biology, and the long-term path toward becoming a multi-planet species. In this episode, Mat Kaplan, senior communications adviser at The Planetary Society, shares his conversations with speakers and guests at the Convention. We hear from Robert Zubrin, founder of The Mars Society, who delivered a fiery call to protect NASA’s science programs in the face of unprecedented budget cuts. Humphrey “Hoppy” Price, Chief Engineer for NASA’s Robotic Mars Exploration Program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, updates us on the future of Mars Sample Return and new mission architectures. Keynote speaker Dex Hunter-Torricke, a longtime communications leader for SpaceX, Meta, and other major tech organizations, reflects on AI’s promise and peril, and why Mars remains a beacon of hope for humanity’s future. Biologist and technologist Tiffany Vora, vice president for innovation partnerships at Explore Mars, and Erika DeBenedictis, biologist and founder of Pioneer Labs, reveal breakthroughs in synthetic biology and engineered microbes that could help future Martians survive. Steve Benner, chemist and founder of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution (FfAME), revisits the Viking lander experiments and makes a provocative case that we may have found Martian life nearly 50 years ago. Architect Melodie Yashar, CEO of AENARA and a pioneer in 3D-printed habitat research, shares progress in additive construction on Earth and Mars. James Burk, executive director of The Mars Society, discusses advocacy, analog research stations, and the organization’s expanding international footprint. Finally, we meet Sasha, a 13-year-old presenter whose enthusiasm offers a bright glimpse of the next generation of explorers. We wrap up the show with What’s Up with Bruce Betts, chief scientist at The Planetary Society, with a discussion of perchlorates in the Martian soil. Discover more at: https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/2025-mars-society-conventionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Oral arguments took place in the highly-anticipated unitary executive case, Trump v. Slaughter. The overruling of the case that seems to govern, Humphrey's Executor, has been long expected, and indeed, the Chief Justice referred to the “dry husk” that was all that remained of that case after recent years of whittling by the current and recent Court.  However, faced with the extremity of possible consequences, the Court veered this way and that, indicating that while the direction seems clear, the destination may not be.  Fascinating intersections with other cases and theories that Professor Amar has studied and expounded over the years abound, and in our Cosell-like tour of the argument's twists and turns, you will learn how it fits together.  CLE is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Today on The Editors, Rich, Charlie, Jim, and Noah discuss Trump's recently announced national security plan, news on the Humphrey's Executor front, and Jasmine Crockett's Senate ambitions.Editors' Picks:Rich: Dan's post “Supreme Court Rightly Keeps the Texas Republican Gerrymander for 2026” Charlie: Jianli Yang “One Fire, One System: Hong Kong's Fire Tragedy and the City That No Longer Exists”Jim: Jeff's piece "Jasmine Crockett Gives New Hope to Texas Republicans"Noah: Tal Fortgang's piece “An Insidious New Morality Is Giving License to Kill”Light Items:Rich: UVA losing to DukeCharlie: His wife's new carJim: Christmas party seasonNoah: Flu shot gone wrongSponsors:University of AustinMade InStrawberryVaerThis podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required) President Trump stands to gain significant new authority as the Supreme Court signals support for overturning a 1935 precedent that limits presidential control over independent agencies. The ruling could reshape how Washington works and dramatically increase executive power. The White House announces a $12 billion bailout for farmers harmed by the tariff war with China, sparking frustration from small businesses that say they have been hit even harder. Legal challenges to the tariffs raise new questions about whether the funding will ultimately remain available. Trump's new National Security Strategy marks a seismic shift in US foreign policy, prioritizing the Western Hemisphere, confronting China in the Indo-Pacific, and sharply distancing from Europe. Bryan walks listeners through the document using a historical lens, asking how President George Washington might view America's path forward.   "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32     Keywords: Supreme Court presidential power, Humphrey's Executor, Trump executive authority, farmer bailout, tariff war, small business tariffs, National Security Strategy, Western Hemisphere focus, China Indo-Pacific strategy, Europe relations, George Washington Farewell Address

On today's Top News in 10, we cover: Indiana's 9-0 Republican redistricting map passes the Senate committee and heads to have its future decided in the Indiana State Senate itself. The Supreme Court argues over the President's Constitutional right to fire federal employees at the Federal Trade Commission and beyond, "Humphrey's Executor." Tensions rise between the United States and Venezuela amid confident and controversial social media posts. Keep Up With The Daily Signal Sign up for our email newsletters:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.dailysignal.com/email⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠     Subscribe to our other shows:  The Tony Kinnett Cast: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/7AFk8xjiOOBEynVg3JiN6g⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  The Signal Sitdown: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL2026390376⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   Problematic Women:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL7765680741⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   Victor Davis Hanson: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL9809784327⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   Follow The Daily Signal:  X:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/intent/user?screen_name=DailySignal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.instagram.com/thedailysignal/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Facebook:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Truth Social:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://truthsocial.com/@DailySignal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  YouTube:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal?sub_confirmation=1⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠    Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform and never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The High Court hears a major case on whether President Trump can fire members of the Federal Trade Commission, despite a 1935 precedent (Humphrey's Executor) that says otherwise. Plus, in a second case this week, Republicans challenge limits on coordinated campaign spending by candidates and political parties. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A case in which the Court will decide whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.

Let's take a short deep dive into just how phony Marjorie Taylor Greene is after her 60 Minutes appearance. Plus, SCOTUS looks poised to get rid of Humphrey's Executor, solidifying some presidential powers.

Trump, President of United States v. Slaughter | 12/08/25 | Docket #: 25-332 25-332 TRUMP V. SLAUGHTER DECISION BELOW: THE APPLICATION FOR STAY PRESENTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND BY HIM REFERRED TO THE COURT IS GRANTED. THE JULY 17,2025 ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NO. 25 – CV – 909 , ECF DOC. 52 , IS STAYED. THE APPLICATION IS ALSO TREATED AS A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT, AND THE PETITION IS GRANTED.   THE STAY SHALL TERMINATE UPON THE SENDING DOWN OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT. EXPEDITED BRIEFING. CERT. GRANTED 9/22/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: The parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: (1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey ' s Executor v. United States , 295 U. S. 602 (1935), should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person ' s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 25-5261

We continue our sermon series Christmas Grace as our NextGen Grow Pastor, Drew Humphrey, preaches from Colossians 1. "The Dawn of Redeeming Grace" Colossians 1:15-20Colossians 1:15 GRACE THAT IS SEEN Jesus was not the first being created, and yet Jesus was born."There is no God in Heaven who is unlike Jesus." - Michael ReevesColossians 1:19GRACE THAT IS FULL 1. Grace In MeColossians 2:6-7a 2. Anti-Grace Around MeColossians 2:83. Grace Through MeColossians 2:9-10 Colossians 1:20 GRACE THAT REDEEMS Ultimate Reconciliation: YesUniversal Salvation: No

Dominic reads a quietly enchanting festive episode from “Master Humphrey's Clock” by Charles Dickens. Master Humphrey is wandering the snowy streets, one 25th December, and casually walks into a tavern. A decision that will change his life forever ...A MERRY CHRISTMAS to all you listeners, wherever in the world you are! Support the showIf you'd like to make a donation to support the costs of producing this series you can buy 'coffees' right here https://www.buymeacoffee.com/dominicgerrardThank you so much!Host: Dominic GerrardSeries Artwork: Léna GibertOriginal Music: Dominic GerrardThank you for listening!

Civil Procedure: Does Heck v. Humphrey bar § 1983 claims even where the plaintiff never had access to federal habeas relief? - Argued: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 10:51:20 EDT

Hear from Chiefs head coach Andy Reid, quarterback Patrick Mahomes, center Creed Humphrey, and cornerback Trent McDuffie. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Olivier v. City of Brandon | 12/03/25 | Docket #: 24-993 24-993 OLIVIER V. BRANDON, MS DECISION BELOW: 2023 WL 5500223 CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Gabriel Olivier is a Christian who feels called to share the gospel with his fellow citizens. After being arrested and fined for violating an ordinance targeting "protests" outside a public amphitheater, Olivier brought a § 1983 suit under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement against him in the future. The Fifth Circuit, applying its precedent construing this Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), held that Olivier's prior conviction barred his § 1983 suit because even the prospective relief it seeks would necessarily undermine his prior conviction. The Fifth Circuit acknowledged the "friction" between its decision and those of this Court and other circuits. Over vigorous dissents, the Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, as the Fifth Circuit holds in conflict with the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, this Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars § 1983 claims seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional. 2. Whether, as the Fifth Circuit and at least four others hold in conflict with five other circuits, Heck v. Humphrey bars § 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-60566

On this episode, we are joined by wildlife biologist and renowned writer Bob Humphrey. With a career spanning the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, environmental consulting, and over 40 years of hunting across the continent, he blends scientific insight with real-world experience few can match. Bob is also a prolific outdoor writer and editor, contributing to our very own Gamekeeper magazine. From deer biology to turkey strategy to life on the water, his storytelling and expertise make him a go to voice in the outdoor world. Listen, Learn and Enjoy. Send a text message to the show! Support the showStay connected with GameKeepers: Instagram: @mossyoakgamekeepers Facebook: @GameKeepers Twitter: @MOGameKeepers YouTube: @MossyOakGameKeepers Website: https://mossyoakgamekeeper.com/ Enter The Gamekeeper Giveaway: https://bit.ly/GK_Giveaway Subscribe to Gamekeepers Magazine: https://bit.ly/GK_Magazine Buy a Single Issue of Gamekeepers Magazine: https://bit.ly/GK_Single_Issue Join our Newsletters: Field Notes - https://bit.ly/GKField_Notes | The Branch - https://bit.ly/the_branch Have a question for us or a podcast idea? Email us at gamekeepers@mossyoak.com

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Urias-Orellana v. Bondi (December 1) - Immigration; Issue(s): Whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals' judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute "persecution" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entm't (December 1) - Copyright Infringement; Issue(s): (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it; and (2) whether the 4th Circuit erred in holding that mere knowledge of another"s direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin (December 2) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court.Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi (December 3) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether this court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional; and (2) whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Section 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief.Trump v. Slaughter (Independent Agencies) (December 8) - Presidential Removal Powers; Administrative Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (December 9) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. " 109.37.Hamm v. Smith (December 10) - Capital Punishment; Issue(s): Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. (December 10) - Financial Services; Securities; Issue(s): Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act creates an implied private right of action. Featuring:David W. Casazza, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLPBoyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLPCaleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Director, Center for Individual RightsProf. Michael T. Morley, Sheila M. McDevitt Professor of Law & Faculty Director of the Election Law Center, Florida State University College of LawJoel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLPProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Jill Jacobson, Litigation Associate, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

The fun part of any hobby is meeting interesting folks with a variety of different talents and Wayman Humphrey is no different. An American artist known for his unique, vibrant approach to many different forms of art, blending geometric shapes, bold colors, and dynamic compositions, that explore both structure and spontaneity. While not as widely known in mainstream art circles as some of his contemporaries, Humphrey's work is respected for its originality and emotional depth, but more importantly for the listeners of this podcast, Wayman discovered the magic of model railroading just a few short years ago and hobby is far better off with him as a participant. This is a great podcast about a very interesting individual that we're sure you'll enjoy!!

In this episode, Adam Torres interviews Sarah Barnes-Humphrey, Founder of Let's Talk Supply Chain and author of I Buried Her in a French Press: A Memoir About Finding My Voice and the Power of Being Heard. Sarah reflects on growing a career in a male-dominated industry, losing and rediscovering her voice through podcasting and personal setbacks, and her mission to create safe spaces where people feel seen and heard. Follow Adam on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/askadamtorres/ for up to date information on book releases and tour schedule. Apply to be a guest on our podcast: https://missionmatters.lpages.co/podcastguest/ Visit our website: https://missionmatters.com/ More FREE content from Mission Matters here: https://linktr.ee/missionmattersmedia Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Fletcher Prouty Tom Valentine interview His living history since WW2 Liaison between JCS and CIA The death of JFK was a coup d'etat Humphrey "What have they done to us" Senator Moynahan pleaded for custody of Oswald Almost the entire cabinet was outside of U.S. when JFK was killed Pentagon Papers: Disinformation leaked by Ellsberg who worked under Ed Lansdale Ellsberg title was Civilain Pacifacation Specialist" in 1966 Nixon had a Pepsi Cola link. Was in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963 Nixon said he was not in Dallas The Pentagon Papers were mostly CIA papers. Fabrication of why U.S. went into Vietnam Made it look like it was a military initiative, when it was CIA all along General Dean "J3" Joint Chiefs of Staff "Operations" Chief not mentioned at all Pentagon Dept "ISA" International Security Administration Dr. John McNaughton was head and Ellsburg worked there both in office # 4E809 McNaughton died in a plane crash July 19th 1967 ISA Stored papers from USAID, CIA, White House & State Dept. Sherman Kent - CIA- "The Father Of Intelligence Analysis" Missing papers are the most important ones, and have misled historians The U.S. has too many weapons for peace Les Gelb signed off on the Pentagon papers on behalf of Robert McNamara He then works for New York Times Smedley Butler: War is a racket Ellsberg worked for Rand, a key war industry organization Gen. John W. Vogt, Gen. Russell Dougherty, Townsend Hoopes, Henry Cuss, Art Barber McNamara played a key role in the Pentagon Papers hoax CIA clandestine operations not revealed Ellsberg gave papers to Senator Fullbright, who worked to make them public Deep state behind the Vietnam War In 1970, U.S. troops entered Cambodia Ellsberg worked on leaking the papers to N.Y. Times They were made public in 1971 Ellsberg sought to blame JFK for Vietnam McGovern claimed Ellsberg was a converted hawk "Should we have war crimes trials?" Neil Sheehan Ellsberg charged with security leak Secret Team, Cover and Deception: Expert spinners of information CIA started the war, claimed later it could not be won The Papers are accurate, but mislead by the omission of key documents Prouty saw the delivery of Bell helicopters in Laos under Eisenhower. Surprise visitor to the the Pentagon from Textron for Bell helicopter Choppers moved to Vietnam in 1960 - Billions were spent on helicopters JFK was announcing a withdrawal, which would be the end of Bell and Textron it Went against a war economy Change in Vietnam policy after JFK death, by LBJ, took place two days later and was implemented within 3 months Prouty was at the Pentagon from 1955-1964  

Derek Humphrey explains NYC policy changes with Derek Drescher and Geo Perez. They also discuss the pros and cons of being in prison, childhood stories before technology, achieving fame, and fighting. ON THE GATE! ENJOY!Original air date: 11.17.25Join the live chat Wednesday nights at 11pm EST. Uncensored versions of the show streamed Monday and Thursday at 2pm EST on GaSDigital.com. Signup with code OTG for the archive of the show and others like Legion of Skanks, In Godfrey We Trust, and Story Warz.FOLLOWGeo PerezInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/geoperez86/Derek DrescherInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/derekdrescher/00:15 intro02:10 Zohran policy03:50 1990s Crown Heights race wars07:30 working landscape with Mexicans08:30 finding a normal person to be a politician 10:40 money spent on dereks reform12:20 prison workout club13:30 mens prison assault 14:15 american me is politics15:10 voting16:30 Curtis silwa/guardian angels18:00 dereks sc fight story20:00 Dominican Republic helping Jews in the 40s 21:00 fighting a blind guy22:30 how kids used to entertain themselves before technology24:00 worst thing everyone has done27:15 story warz/skankfest28:15 geos girl shitting herself29:30 kids of authority figures32:15 pat berry33:20 open micing37:00 independent comedy clubs39:00 doordash girl43:30 relationships45:30 baseball48:00 dating comics49:00 fame51:00 actors53:00 Derek gonna quit over acting55:00 snap58:00 plugs On The Gate! A podcast hosted by two jailbird/recovering drug addicts and active comedians Geo Perez and Derek Drescher, who talk each week about their times in jail, what they learned, what you should know, and how they are improving their life or slipping into recidivism each day!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Medical Affairs Unscripted welcomes Dr. Jeff Humphrey—an experienced CMO with three decades across Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer, Kyowa Kirin, and multiple biotechs—to discuss why the Target Product Profile (TPP) is the foundation of effective drug development. He shares a clear framework for "starting with the end in mind," from scientific fit and standards of care to regulatory precedent, investor expectations, and the smart use of AI. Humphrey also underscores the importance of working with patient-first KOLs and reminds listeners that poorly planned development can waste years of people's lives and millions of dollars.

Viral clips make big promises...so we brought Humphrey Yang to test them. We unpack the “drop to the 12% bracket” myth, rent vs buy math, why being frugal scales (even for LeBron), the ETF overlap trap, and the market timing that works. Practical steps, zero fluff. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jump start your journey with our FREE financial resources⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Reach your goals faster with our products⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Take the relationship to the next level: become a client⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe on YouTube for early access and go beyond the podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Connect with us on social media for more content⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Bring confidence to your wealth building with simplified strategies from The Money Guy. Learn how to apply financial tactics that go beyond common sense and help you reach your money goals faster. Make your assets do the heavy lifting so you can quit worrying and start living a more fulfilled life. ⁠⁠⁠⁠DRINKAG1.com/MONEYGUY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join us for an inspiring conversation with Sarah Barnes-Humphrey, the dynamic founder and host of "Let's Talk Supply Chain" and "The Blended Podcast," as well as the driving force behind the nonprofit, The Blended Pledge. Sarah shares her compelling journey into the logistics and supply chain industry, tracing her roots back to her family's business. Her story is one of resilience and transformation, where personal and professional setbacks became stepping stones to success. Sarah's passion for modernizing industry marketing led her to create a groundbreaking podcast platform, and she shares the pivotal moments that fueled its growth and rebranding. Her commitment to inclusion is evident through her initiatives like The Blended Podcast and The Blended Pledge, designed to amplify diverse voices in public speaking. Listen in as we explore the journey of finding self-worth and being heard, drawing from the complexities of sharing personal stories in a memoir. With a unique title like "I Buried Her in a French Press," the narrative honors a touching tribute to a loved one while capturing the essence of finding one's voice. This chapter offers a fresh perspective on personal branding and speaking engagements, emphasizing interactive formats over traditional keynotes. We discuss the societal pressures surrounding self-worth and the importance of embracing imperfection, encouraging listeners to engage in meaningful conversations that empower others to share their stories authentically. Connect with Sarah:Website: www.sarahbarneshumphrey.com LinkedIn: Sarah Barnes-Humphrey Instagram: @sarahbarneshumphrey     Let's keep the conversation going!Website: www.martaspirk.com Instagram: @martaspirk Facebook: Marta Spirk Want to be my next guest on The Empowered Woman Podcast?Apply here: www.martaspirk.com/podcastguest  Watch my TEDx talk: http://bit.ly/martatedx Discover and unlock your potential in Suzanne Roberts' book and documentary, It's Deeper Than That: Pathway to a Vibrant, Purposeful, and Liberated Life.  You are guided to reconnect with the self-renewing energy at your core, where clarity returns, purpose ignites, and your life expands beyond what you thought was possible.  Learn more at UnifyingSolutions.com   

What if losing everything wasn't the end of your story, but the moment you finally found your voice?In this episode of Empowering Her, I sit down with Sarah Barnes-Humphrey – founder of Let's Talk Supply Chain, creator of the Blended podcast and nonprofit, and author of the memoir “I Buried Her in a French Press: A Memoir About Finding My Voice and the Power of Being Heard.”-- We go deep into self-worth, visibility, rebuilding after loss, and what it actually looks like to create a life and brand around who you really are, not who you think you're supposed to be.Here's what we talk about in this conversation:How Sarah lost her family's logistics business at 37 and rebuilt from the ground up with a mic, a podcast, and zero safety netWhy “progress over perfection” is the hill she's willing to die on – and how some of her most downloaded episodes came from imperfect, messy beginningsThe moment she chose self-worth as the one word for her personal brand, and how that decision reshaped her content, her company, and her confidenceThe story behind her unforgettable book title, “I Buried Her in a French Press,” and how grief, intuition, and symbolism collided in one wild, sacred momentPublic speaking panic: from childhood bullying and stage fright to live TV, panels, and keynotes – and how she learned to let anxiety move through her instead of running the showRedefining what speaking “has to” look like and giving yourself permission to choose formats that feel like you (fireside chats, panels, conversations instead of traditional keynotes)The difference between saying no from fear and saying no from alignment – and how to start telling the truth about which one is driving youThe spiritual supports she leans on daily: crystals, sage spray, an abundance altar, and watching for signs of support and abundance in the smallest detailsWhy she founded Blended Pledge to fund travel for underrepresented speakers, and how covering those expenses is literally getting more diverse voices on stages around the worldWhat she would say to her 8-year-old self after years of bullying – and the reminder every woman needs about her worth, no matter how “late” she feelsConnect with Sarah:Website: https://sarahbarneshumphrey.com Book – “I Buried Her in a French Press: A Memoir About Finding My Voice and the Power of Being Heard” on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1544549474 Let's Talk Supply Chain podcast + platform: https://letstalksupplychain.com Blended Pledge nonprofit + grants for diverse speakers: https://blendedpledge.org Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sarahbarneshumphrey Let's Stay Connected!As an empowerment coach, author, twin girl mom, and the creator of the GiRLiFE Academy, my mission is to help every woman and girl discover her voice and live a life that lights her up from the inside out.I'd love to connect with you and continue this beautiful journey together!

Mike Evans and Brandon Stokley with Mark Schlereth kick off the third hour highlighting Nikola Jokic’s sublime 55-point game in LA and the privilege of seeing his greatness in real time. The guys talk receivers with the return of Lil’Jordan Humphrey before they go to the text line and the YouTube chat to gauge their reaction to Bo’s comments about the criticism he’s been facing. Mike, Stink, and Stoke dive further into the discussion around Bo’s comments and they wonder if the Broncos’ young QB is feeling the heat.  

00:00 Cross talk.14:20 Sean Payton comments on JK Dobbins and Lil'Jordan Humphrey.35:05 Avs and Nuggets win.

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

What the NTSB says the cockpit voice recorder is revealing about the seconds leading up to Tuesday's deadly UPS plane crash, Congressman Andy Barr officially files to run for the U.S. Senate, and Louisville Metro Police Chief Paul Humphrey on his first year heading up the department and what's next.

The show visits eastside treasure Humphrey's Market with its general manager, Jordan Morning, and Downtown Kiwanis members Scott Reeder and Kayla Dickerson previewing a fundraiser for clothing for impoverished students at McClernand School. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The show continues from Humphrey's Market as customer Sherri Landecker gives her review of the longtime eastside store, including the things that are difficult to find elsewhere, and owner Hope Humphrey-Walker chats before Dr. Sean McCaffrey takes over with Wellness Wednesday. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Humphrey's Market at 15th and Laurel streets hosts the show at the legendary eastside store as Hope Humphrey-Walker and Aaron Schlueter talk about the business's history dating to the 1930's. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

Joined on this episode by the 'Hump' himself... Jeremie Humphries and I am excited for all that we are going to talk about.  We discuss building a peer support team and the challenges and lessons learned. . How to go about changing culture, how to stay sane while leading change. Also going to discuss a topic near and dear to my heart... not being an asshole. Of course as always, the best laid plans of me and the guest will be awesomely derailed by the phenomenal questions from the live audience!  Enjoy the episode!!!

On October 10, 1985, a humpback whale dubbed “Humphrey” got lost and swam nearly 70 miles inland, inspiring one of the largest and most publicized whale rescues in U.S. history.

Today, how a Bay Area town remembers Humphrey the Humpback, forty years on from his 1985 dramatic visit to the Bay Delta.

What happens when we react with Humphrey Yang to his appearance on Diary of a CEO? We dive into the truth about crypto hype, passive vs. active investing, housing myths, and the illusion of “passive income.” Join us for honest laughs, behind-the-scenes stories, and real strategies that actually build wealth. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jump start your journey with our FREE financial resources⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Reach your goals faster with our products⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Take the relationship to the next level: become a client⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe on YouTube for early access and go beyond the podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Connect with us on social media for more content⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Bring confidence to your wealth building with simplified strategies from The Money Guy. Learn how to apply financial tactics that go beyond common sense and help you reach your money goals faster. Make your assets do the heavy lifting so you can quit worrying and start living a more fulfilled life. ⁠⁠DRINKAG1.com/MONEYGUY Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hear from Dave Toub, Steve Spagnuolo, center Creed Humphrey, and defensive lineman Chris Jones. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Humphrey Yang is an amazing personal finance creator with tens of millions of followers and he joins us for a Q&A livestream! We start by learning where Humphrey's money mindset stems from...you don't want to miss his father's story. Then we answer your financial questions with Humphrey on everything from investment allocation to over-saving in your 20s to loans from a family member. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jump start your journey with our FREE financial resources⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Reach your goals faster with our products⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Take the relationship to the next level: become a client⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe on YouTube for early access and go beyond the podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Connect with us on social media for more content⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Bring confidence to your wealth building with simplified strategies from The Money Guy. Learn how to apply financial tactics that go beyond common sense and help you reach your money goals faster. Make your assets do the heavy lifting so you can quit worrying and start living a more fulfilled life. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠NordVPN.com/MONEYGUY⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You might not know Madison Humphrey by name, but trust me, you've seen her videos. Leasing manager one day, divorced mom the next, she's everywhere. With over 4 million TikTok followers, Madison joins Kennedy to discuss her rise to fame and what inspired her to parody your favorite viral videos. Follow Kennedy on Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@KennedyNation⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   Kennedy Now Available on YouTube: ⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://link.chtbl.com/kennedyytp⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow on TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@kennedy_foxnews⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join Kennedy for Happy Hour on Fridays! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWlNiiSXX4BNUbXM5X8KkYbDepFgUIVZj⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today, we continue our exploration of the century long love affair between fashion and the showgirl. Recommended reading and viewing: Es-pranza Humphrey's article “Fashioning the Black Chorus Girl" Elspeth Brown's Work! A Queer History of Modeling Marcel Sauvage's Les Mémoires de Joséphine Baker, Baker's 1931 Casino de Paris performance Robin Givhan's The Battle of Versaiiles: The Night American Fashion Stumbled into the Spotlight and Made History Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French spend today's episode reviewing nine cases the Supreme Court will decide during the upcoming term, from the intricacies of tariffs to the legality of conversion therapy. The Agenda:—The tariffs cases—Justice Brett Kavanaugh's past comments on Humphrey's Executor—Transgender participation in sports cases—Conversion therapy cases—No love for damage claims—Campaign finance reform—Death penalty and IQ tests—Who can quash a subpoena?—Implications of the stay order in the Federal Reserve case Show Notes:—Trump v. V.O.S. Selections—Trump v. Slaughter—Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety—Louisiana v. Callais—Little v. Hecox—West Virginia v. B.P.J.—Chiles v. Salazar—National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission—First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin—Hamm v. Smith Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices