Podcasts about Humphrey

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   

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.  

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.

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

Scott Courtright joins Bruce & Gaydos to share his story of being struck by lightning while hiking Humphrey's Peak.

Send us a textEpisode 682: Open door, NSFW Fiction. Marissa and Humphrey are dressed up in costumes to go on a Halloween haunted hayride and trail, but Humprey has a surprise for his girlfriend. They enjoy all the jump scares and the getting close to each other, cozying up close to get away from the scary monsters! As they progress to the secret spot, Humphrey guides his lover into a dark spot for some sexy fun!This Haunted Hayride Sex Surprise is an Erotic Improv, like storytelling of a sex story around a bonfire. Imagine you are sitting around a warm bonfire in the dark, cool night, but cozying up to the warmth of the fire as you listen to me spin a tale. Back in the day when stories were only verbal, things like storytelling around bonfires would happen. A spooky tale, but with sex in it is what you will get in this Halloween erotic fiction story. I literally created this story right off the top of my head as I recorded it, I didn't have it written...it was live creation!Book Deals: $0.99 cents books: https://books.ruanwillowauthor.com/ninetyninecentsbookssalesRomance Book Blast link (ONLY free on 10/28/2025) https://www.romancebooklovers.com/ John Gives His Wife Hot Adventures (ONLY FREE on 10/28/25) https://mybook.to/johngiveshiswifehotadvThe Arousal Package ARC Copy on BookSirens https://booksirens.com/book/EFAMSX6/G9K0WRK Get the book for $0.99 cents at https://payhip.com/b/Jybjs Try Audible for $0.99/month for first 3 months at this affiliate link https://amzn.to/4qlR6gEWicked and Spicy on sale for Halloween on online sellers for ebook and audiobook: A short Halloween Sale $0.99 cents on Spotify and Barnes and Noble $0.99 cents or FREE with subscription It's on sale for $0.99 cents on Chirp ttps://www.chirpbooks.com/audiobooks/wicked-spicy-tales-by-ruan-willow and https://open.spotify.com/show/1GyEDeUbZc0hOnq4O7UDBgON SALE THROUGH HALLOWEEN erotic, horror erotica, fantasy spicy romance: Wicked & Spicy on Ruan's site:https://payhip.com/b/sT8iPhttps://payhip.com/b/n8pNHHalloween erotic fiction, THE FEMDOM COVEN EROTIC ANTHOLOGY: https://books.ruanwillowauthor.com/thefemdomcoven Support the showExclusives https://www.buzzsprout.com/1599808/subscribeNewsletters https://subscribepage.io/ruanwillowhttps://linktr.ee/RuanWillow Affiliates Firm Tech 15% OFF with code ruan15 https://myfirmtech.com/ruanwillow BeeDee dating app https://beedee.app/?r=ohfuckyeahThe Fantasy Box DATE30 for $30 OFF 1st box https://thefantasybox.sjv.io/c/6250602/2141126/26423

— A House Built for Him — Visit Abidechurchfl.com for more info.———If you would like to give, you can go tohttps://www.Abidechurchfl.com/give or you can text any amount to 8432125

He steals from the rich and gives to ..... well, it's debated... the poor? Or to Humphrey himself?   For more information about the podcast, including a timeline go to Tudoriferous – The home of the Tudoriferous Podcast Join our Patreon family for many more episodes and a Discord channel - Tudoriferous | creating a Podcast discussing the great, good and mad Tudor Era | Patreon

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

Do you believe it right for people who fight chickens if convicted to spend more time in prison that a rapist? JJ Humphrey currently running for Lt Governor of Oklahoma and takes the animal rights community head on.

In hour 4 of New Day Steven starts the hour off and replays an interview he did with Chiefs Center Creed Humphrey last night at a Charity event at the Boulevard Brewery for a great cause. Then SSJ, Nate, and Jake are joined by "Mike's Got This" Mike Dipasquale from DM Injury Law. They guys give their picks for the coming weekend of football. SSJ also asks mike to “defend” or “prosecute” this week’s headlines.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of the Giants Huddle podcast, Paul Dottino sits down with Giants wide receiver, Lil’Jordan Humphrey, to talk about his progression in the Giants offense, Paul chats with former Broncos offensive lineman, Tyler Polumbus, about the matchup with Denver, and Bob Papa and Carl Banks sit down with Giants Head Coach, Brian Daboll. :00 - Lil’Jordan Humphrey 15:35 - Tyler Polumbus 29:55 - Brian DabollSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It’s time for Mackay on Sport. This week, it’s with NZME’s head of sport and rural.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Lamar. Roquan. Hamilton. Humphrey. We're still (mostly) buying that the Baltimore Ravens can climb back into the AFC playoff picture if they can get their best players back on the field against a weak upcoming schedule. Luke Jones and Nestor discuss the many bye week issues and concerns for head coach John Harbaugh and the last place Baltimore Ravens. The post Luke Jones and Nestor discuss the many bye week issues and concerns for Harbaugh and the last place Baltimore Ravens first appeared on Baltimore Positive WNST.

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

It's fall, it's October and the US Supreme Court is back in session. On today's episode, we have a special guest from the AFJ Justice team. We are joined by our colleague Jamal Lockings. With Jamall we will cover the big cases to be heard by the court. Then we will talk about how nonprofits can get involved with supreme court advocacy, nominees, and more while staying nonpartisan and being mindful of lobbying limits.    Attorneys for this Episode  Brittany Hacker  Susan Finkle Sourlis  Jamaal Lockings     Intro to Justice Program  Our justice team works on both federal and state judicial appointments and elections and runs numerous invaluable resources including our judicial vacancy tracker and helps keep us and the public informed about nominees. This includes the decisions they make after they've been confirmed, and how cases in federal courts – especially the supreme court – are impacting our civil rights and democracy.     Today, we are thrilled to be joined on the pod by our friend and colleague Jamaal Lockings. Jamaal is a fellow attorney who serves as a Dorot Fellow on the Federal Courts team.   Today we want to talk about the upcoming cases in this supreme court term, what we should be keeping an eye on, the potential impacts for our c3 partners, and what nonprofits can do during this term and future terms to advocate.     Cases to watch out for this term  Voting Rights and Money In Politics  Louisiana v. Callais  Issue: Whether a states efforts to comply with the VRA is, in itself, a form of racial discrimination   (1) Rehearing from last term (2) The Court is playing politics (3) the VRA is on the chopping block   Consequences: A final blow to the VRA, and increased difficulty for minority voters to participate in free and fair elections   National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC  Issue: Whether to maintain the federal limits on political party coordination w/ candidates in campaign advertising.   (1) Could render campaign contribution limits meaningless, increasing the already outsized influence of money in politics (2) These cases on elections and voting rights can't be observed in a vacuum     LGBTQ+   Chiles v. Salazar   Issue: Whether Colorado's ban on “conversion therapy” for minors violates First Amendment protections of free speech and religious exercise   (1) Religious litigants have been notoriously successful in this court (2) free speech and religious exercise have been used not to ensure equity or equality but to prop up Christian nationalist ideology.   West Virginia v. B.P.J.   Issue: Title IX and barring Trans athletes   (1) This court continues to wade into culture wars (2) It's ruling in Skrmetti and Justice Barrett's assertion that Trans isn't a protected states (3) Embolden lawmakers to continue to write oppressive laws against trans individuals    Executive Power & Civil Liberties   Trump v. Slaughter   Issue: whether statutory removal protections for members of the FTC – and agencies like it – “violate” the separation of powers.    (1) The Court's emergency orders this summer (2) growing belief in the unitary executive theory (3) Likely to overrule Humphrey's executor  Consequences: Collapse of independent agencies and with it, governing stability.     What c3s can do:  Supreme court advocacy is nonpartisan—you are free to stand for or against cases before any court or get involved in the cases.   Litigation at the supreme court: c3s are often the best voice and represent groups who otherwise would not be heard or could not bring such large scale cases  Amicus briefs   Educating the public about cases and impacts of opinions  As you know c3 public charities may engage in lobbying and there are ways through lobbying that can affect the courts at the federal or maybe the state level  Nominee advocacy—Advocate for or against nominees to supreme court (lobbying)  Remember the lower district courts and circuit courts as well  Remember the lobbying rules if you are a c3: must track and report your lobbying the IRS and stay within your lobbying limits. Great place for c4s to get involved because they can lobbying in an unlimited amount.  Ethics advocacy—ask congress for more oversight or ethics rules (Lobbying if it will require a legislative vote).   Resources  Alliance for Justice, Being a Player  Alliance for Justice, Confirmation of Supreme Court Justices  Alliance for Justice, Judicial Nominee Tracker  Alliance for Justice, Supreme Court Reform 

In this episode, we chat about the "digital sharecroppers" commonly known as the OTAs with Humphrey Bowles, the CEO of Truvi. Enjoy!⭐️ Links & Show NotesAdam NorkoConrad O'Connell Humphrey BowlesTruvi

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

Genesis 1:1 Genesis 1:26 Genesis 21:6 Genesis 32: Exodus 3:1-5 II Timothy 3:12 I Samuel 3:1-10 Isaiah 6:8 Isaiah 9:6-7 Isaiah 53:4-5 Acts 9:10-17

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

Mikee P grabs Maryland Jockey Club Host Kali Francois and Laurel Park Handicapper Will Humphrey to break down the 8 Stakes from Maryland Million Day 2025. Laurel Park has 12% Takeout Pick 5s (Early and Late). Early Post Time Saturday, October 11th at 11:30 EST.

Damian Barrett and Joe Pignataro bring you the latest footy news on AFL Daily. Geelong has made its first move in trying to secure Charlie Curnow. Clayton Oliver nominates the Giants as his new home. Leek Aleer won't be a Saint after they pulled the rug out from under him, and the Gold Coast remain defiant that Bailey Humphrey isn't up for trade. Subscribe to AFL Daily and never miss an episode. Rate and review wherever you listen to podcasts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

California, really has a unique circumstance when it comes to interior design legislation. Despite popular belief they do not have occupational regulation for Interior Design. This episode with Mary Oliver and Amanda Humphrey dispels a lot of the myths surrounding the state, and really talks about the hurdles faced by Commercial Interior Designers who work there. Enjoy!Timestamps:Welcome & Intro: 00:13Disclaimer & General Background: 3:27California Interior Design Legislation History:Current Structure in California: 17:00Current Draft Bill Language: 1:13:06Working with a Lobbyist, Why this is an Important Issue & What Comes Next:Action Items: 1:30:10Outro: 01:137:40Show Notes:Show notes from this episode can be found on our website.Thanks for listening!Design Over Drinks is Hosted by Kendra Shea Produced and Edited by Kendra Shea and Simon Shea Season 3 Graphics and Cover Art by Tano Design Season 3 Music is by Qreepz Email: DesignOverDrinksPod@gmail.com Socials/ Patreon: @DesignOverDrinksPod BlueSky: @DesignOverDrinks

Ed Bourke and Chris Cavanagh are joined by Adrian Houghton from the Dee-Brief to talk about THAT Bailey Humphrey photo, the latest on the trade front and the draft combine.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Matt and I dive into all the trade chat concerning the Suns. There is a lot of outgoings we cover and our feelings towards them, with the Humphrey chat taking centre stage.There is also the incomings led by Petracca, and what it means for the Suns to pick up a player of that calibre.Thanks for listening! If you have a question, comment or feedback for us, get in touch below.Email: turnoverthetape@gmail.comX: @turnoverthetapeCheers,K

In this episode, Mark Humphrey AWCF ATF reflects on his experiences at the Focus convention and international farriery competitions, where he reconnected with peers and deepened his craft. He shares insights on the AWCF journey, the importance of continued education, and the evolving techniques that shape modern farriery. Mark also discusses his approach to teaching, research, and the value of community in advancing the trade. I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did.   For full length episodes, subscribe here: mullinsfarrier.supercast.com

Professional Baby Namer Taylor Humphrey - Will Pranks Sem with some terrible names Did you quit work in a blaze of glory? Social Media Ban for under 16s Where was your partner when you went into Labour? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

In this bold and thought-provoking episode, Heather sits down with Humphrey Bowles, the founder of Truvi and who has adopted the term "digital sharecropping" within the short-term rental industry. Together, they explore the illusion of entrepreneurship in the short-term rental world - especially when you build your business entirely on platforms like Airbnb, Vrbo, and Booking.com. Humphrey shares the powerful analogy behind digital sharecropping and breaks down what it really means to build a business you don't own. If you've ever questioned who really controls your guest relationships, your reviews, or even your ability to operate, this episode will hit home. From psychological burnout to platform dependency, from trust to true entrepreneurship, this is a conversation that every host and manager needs to hear.

Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who often shares his faith in public. In May 2021, when sharing his faith near an amphitheater in a public park in Brandon, Mississippi, the city’s chief of police confronted Olivier with a recently amended city ordinance requiring “protests” to occur in a designated area. Olivier repositioned himself but soon returned when the designated area proved remote and isolating. The city charged Olivier for violating the ordinance, and he pled nolo contendere and agreed to pay a fine. Olivier then challenged the ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking an injunction prohibiting future enforcement of the law against his expressive activity. The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.Featuring:Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Tobias S. Loss-Eaton, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP

Chiefs OL Creed Humphrey joins full 537 Tue, 30 Sep 2025 15:53:30 +0000 9GCX4GnnTirNYtkn4h9LYPhXTjDmTAdM nfl,kansas city chiefs,society & culture Cody & Gold nfl,kansas city chiefs,society & culture Chiefs OL Creed Humphrey joins Hosts Cody Tapp & Alex Gold team up for 610 Sports Radio's newest mid-day show "Cody & Gold."  Two born & raised Kansas Citians, Cody & Gold have been through all the highs and lows as a KC sports fan and they know the passion Kansas City has for their sports teams."Cody & Gold" will be a show focused on smart, sports conversation with the best voices from KC and around the country. It will also feature our listeners with your calls, texts & tweets as we want you to be a part of the show, not just a listener.  Cody & Gold, weekdays 10a-2p on 610 Sports Radio.  2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. Society & Culture False https://player.amperwavepodcasting.com?feed-link=https%3A%2F%2

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

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

JJ Yeley, POWRI winner at Lucas Oil Speedway; Stef Humphrey, Wayne County Speedway winner; and Chris Ferguson, Dirt Late Model winner are this week's guests.

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

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

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

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

We continue our sermon series, Unafraid while Pastor Drew looks at Judges 7 and the story of Gideon and how that really points us to Christ.Ephesians 2:8-98 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boastJudges 7:1-22 ESV"The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the sign to every Christian that the enemy, death, has been defeated and turned into an ally.” Three Gospel Reminders From Judges 7:Jesus Calls Us From "Come and See" to "Come and Die." The Lowly Bread Became Victory Bread.The One and Only Saving Hand. Romans 10:13 "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."Romans 10:9 "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."Ephesians 2:8-9  8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast

In this episode, we sit down with Steph to dive into the story of Ladies Run Club and its journey over the past five years. From unforgettable marathon memories in Vienna to the growth of international races and training camps, Steph shares how the club has built a unique balance of coached training and genuine community.We talk about the culture shift in running—especially for women—as more athletes take on challenges they once thought impossible. Steph also reflects on the power of personal connection, the domino effect of inspiration within the group, and what makes LRC stand out from other running communities.Whether you're a seasoned runner or just starting out, this conversation highlights how running isn't just about miles—it's about courage, growth, and belonging.

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

2X World Teamer Reece Humphrey joins the show to talk all things World Championships. Send in user submissions and questions to ⁠⁠FRLsubmissions@flosports.tv⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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