Podcast appearances and mentions of Brett Kavanaugh

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

Many leaders still believe emotions don't belong in business. That limiting belief creates workplaces where employees stay quiet when problems appear, avoid taking ownership for customer outcomes, and follow directions even when they see flaws that will affect customers. Fear is data. It signals when people feel unprepared, unsupported, or uncertain about priorities. When leaders ignore those signals, communication erodes, decision quality declines, and customers experience preventable mistakes and service failures. In this episode of Doing CX Right®, Stacy Sherman talks with Kristen Kavanaugh, a former U.S. Marine Corps officer and Tesla culture executive, about how courageous leadership turns fear into insight and action. Kristen shares what she learned from leading Marines in high-stakes missions and from developing leaders inside Tesla's fast-moving production environment. She explains how confronting fear directly, whether in military operations or corporate transformation, builds discipline, transparency, and faster, more confident decisions that protect both employees and customers. From listening to this episode, you will learn how to: Identify behaviors that show fear is influencing team performance Use emotional data to uncover leadership and operational risks before they reach customers Practice courageous leadership that encourages honesty and customer accountability Replace avoidance with structured communication that drives faster resolution Apply proven methods from Tesla and the military to enhance results under pressure Listen now to hear why emotions are not a side effect of business; they are the business and shapes every decision, every interaction, and every outcome. As Stacy Sherman says: "Emotions are the experience, and matters FAR more than you think.™" Learn more at DoingCXRight.com. Book time with Stacy through this link.

Send us a textIn a world where narratives often paint men as oppressors and women as perpetual victims, the reality is far more complicated. In this episode of Clarity from Chaos, host David Campbell engages in a compelling conversation with Edward Bartlett, founder of the International Council for Men and Boys, who sheds light on the often-overlooked challenges faced by men and boys today.Main Content:1. The Education Gap: One of the most striking disparities highlighted by Edward Bartlett is the educational gap between genders. In the United States and many other countries, men are lagging behind women in college enrollments. This trend raises questions about the societal pressures and expectations placed on boys and young men in the educational system.2. Health and Longevity: The health statistics are alarming, with men dying on average five years earlier than women. This disparity is compounded by the staggering suicide rates among males, with approximately 80% of all suicides involving men. Edward points out that teenage boys are particularly vulnerable, facing higher rates of suicide than their female counterparts. This crisis in mental health underscores the need for a supportive environment for young men.3. False Allegations: Edward shares insights from a recent survey indicating that men are often the targets of false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse. High-profile cases, such as those of Brett Kavanaugh and Donald Trump, illustrate the devastating impact these allegations can have on a man's life and career, regardless of their veracity. The conversation emphasizes the urgent need for fair treatment in the legal system.4. The Fatherhood Crisis: The importance of father figures in children's lives cannot be overstated. Research shows that children without a father present are more likely to face various social challenges, including school dropout rates and legal troubles. Yet, family courts often do not prioritize equal shared parenting, which would allow fathers to maintain a significant role in their children's lives.5. Media Portrayals: The negative portrayal of men in media contributes to societal biases. Edward cites a study revealing that 69% of media portrayals of men are unfavorable. This vilification not only affects public perception but also influences the way young boys view themselves and their roles in society.6. The Criminal Justice System: Studies indicate that men face harsher treatment in the criminal justice system compared to women, even when committing identical crimes. This bias raises concerns about equality under the law and the societal belief that men are inherently more dangerous.7. Domestic Violence Awareness: Contrary to popular narratives, men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than women, with the Centers for Disease Control highlighting this disparity. The conversation challenges the stereotypes surrounding domestic violence and advocates for a more nuanced understanding of the issue.8. Homelessness: The homelessness crisis disproportionately affects men, with 76% of homeless individuals being male. This alaSupport the show"Wherever you find yourself is exactly and precisely where God wills you to be" Support our show at the following: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2063276/support Follow us on X: @CFC30290 Follow us on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-3123766 Website: https://clarityfromchaospodcast.buzzsprout.com/ Website: https://dkc051952.substack.com/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFk-DsClSJ6m0GDmAcA7AAg Thanks for listening to Clarity from Chaos

Open Nazi rhetoric is gaining traction on the right, and the response from conservative institutions has been inconsistent at best. Skye and David trace the roots of the problem, the incentives that fueled it, and the late-breaking backlash that may signal a tipping point. They also look at ICE's increasingly aggressive "Kavanaugh stops," the risks of expanding executive power, and why election integrity could be threatened when extremism and state authority begin to reinforce each other.   Want the full episode? Go to The SkyePod feed to hear it now!

This Day in Legal History: John Jay First SCOTUSOn November 6, 1789, John Jay was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the development of the federal judiciary. Appointed by President George Washington, Jay was a prominent figure in the American founding, having co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as President of the Continental Congress. His confirmation by the Senate came just weeks after the Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the structure of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. At the time of his appointment, the Court held limited power and prestige, lacking even a permanent home or a defined role within the balance of government.Jay's tenure as Chief Justice lasted from 1789 to 1795 and was characterized more by circuit riding—traveling to preside over lower federal courts—than by Supreme Court rulings. Nonetheless, he helped lay the procedural and institutional groundwork for the Court's future authority. One of his few significant decisions came in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which asserted that states could be sued in federal court, a holding that was quickly overturned by the Eleventh Amendment. Jay also took on diplomatic duties, most notably negotiating the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which aimed to resolve lingering tensions from the Revolutionary War.Though his judicial legacy on the bench was modest, Jay's influence as the Court's inaugural leader was crucial in legitimizing the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. He later declined a reappointment to the position in 1800, citing the Court's lack of power and institutional independence. The role of Chief Justice would eventually evolve into a central force in constitutional interpretation, but it was Jay who first gave the office its shape. This milestone in legal history underscores the slow and deliberate construction of American judicial authority, which did not arrive fully formed but was built case by case, institution by institution.The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case that raises major constitutional and statutory questions about the scope of presidential power—particularly in the context of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At the heart of the dispute is whether the word “regulate” in IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The case touches on foundational issues in constitutional law, including statutory interpretation, the nondelegation doctrine, emergency powers, and the “major questions” doctrine. The Court must assess not just what the statute says, but also how to interpret the silence—IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes”—in light of Congress's constitutional power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce.From a textualist standpoint, the omission of “tariffs” suggests Congress did not intend to delegate that taxing authority to the executive. From a purposivist view, the debate turns on whether Congress meant to arm the president with broad economic tools to respond to emergencies or to narrowly limit those powers to national security concerns. Additional arguments center on legislative history and the principle of avoiding surplusage, as opponents claim interpreting “regulate” to include “tariff” would render other statutes that explicitly mention tariffs redundant.The nondelegation doctrine also plays a key role. If IEEPA is read to permit the president to impose tariffs, critics argue it may represent an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power—particularly taxing power—absent a clear “intelligible principle” to guide executive discretion. The Court is also being asked to consider whether the president's determination of an “emergency” under IEEPA is reviewable and whether actions taken in response to such emergencies must still adhere to constitutional limits. The outcome of this case could significantly redefine the boundary between congressional authority and executive power in trade and economic policy.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case challenging President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to enact tariffs, which are traditionally under legislative control. The legal debate centered on whether IEEPA's grant of authority to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose long-term tariffs, and whether doing so constitutes a “major question” requiring explicit congressional authorization.Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, expressed concern that Trump's use of IEEPA effectively allowed the executive to impose taxes—a core congressional function. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether there was any precedent for interpreting “regulate importation” as tariff-imposing authority, while Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that IEEPA was designed to limit, not expand, presidential power. Some conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, were more receptive, referencing historical precedents like Nixon's use of similar powers.The administration argued the tariffs were necessary to respond to trade deficits and national security threats and warned that removing them could lead to economic harm. But critics, including business representatives and Democratic-led states, warned of a dangerous shift in power toward the executive. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested such an interpretation of IEEPA could permanently shift trade powers away from Congress, violating constitutional checks and balances.Lawyer for Trump faces tough Supreme Court questions over legality of tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Eric Tung to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-45 party-line vote, making him President Donald Trump's sixth appellate court appointee in his second term. Tung, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department lawyer, most recently worked at Jones Day, where he focused on commercial litigation and frequently represented cryptocurrency interests. His confirmation came over the objections of California's Democratic senators, who criticized his past statements and writings on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender roles.Tung has been a vocal legal advocate for controversial positions, including support for the independent state legislature theory and the argument that stablecoin sales fall outside SEC regulation. While he pledged to follow Supreme Court precedent, critics raised concerns about his originalist approach to constitutional rights. He faced intense scrutiny during his confirmation hearings for remarks made at a Federalist Society event and earlier in life, including statements about gender roles that drew fire from Senator Alex Padilla.Despite these concerns, Tung's legal career earned strong endorsements from colleagues and conservative legal allies. He clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch and has experience handling judicial nominations from within DOJ. Tung fills the seat vacated by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a fellow conservative, ensuring ideological continuity on the Ninth Circuit.Former DOJ, Jones Day Lawyer Confirmed as Ninth Circuit JudgeThe California Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, seeking to block the implementation of new congressional maps approved by voters just a day earlier via Proposition 50. The measure, backed by Newsom and passed by wide margins, suspends the state's independent redistricting commission and installs a Democratic-leaning map that could endanger five Republican-held congressional seats. Newsom has framed the move as a direct response to Texas' mid-cycle redistricting, which is expected to boost Republican power in the 2026 midterms.The GOP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as the primary factor in redrawing districts to favor Hispanic voters. The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group, claim the state legislature lacked sufficient justification to use race in this way and failed to meet the legal standards required under the Voting Rights Act.Republicans also contend that Proposition 50 diminishes the political voice of non-Hispanic groups and constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The suit, Tangipa v. Newsom, is backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and includes Republican lawmakers and candidates as plaintiffs. It mirrors legal challenges in Texas, where courts are evaluating claims of racial bias in redistricting. The outcome of these cases could significantly affect congressional control heading into the latter half of President Trump's second term.California Republicans Sue to Block New Congressional Maps (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Pam Bondi is attempting to terrify voters with a show of force on election day - will it work? Can we all be brave in this important moment? America's redistricting fight: how could the US congressional map shift? Republicans hold a 219-213 majority in the House, but they could lock in more seats if reapportionments go their way. Trump is demanding the GOP kill the filibuster to secure permanent Republican power. Good News Alert! Burgerville is offering a free meal to kids on SNAP. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Céard é an scéal is déanaí ó thaobh an t-ionsaí a déanamh ar lóistín d'iarrthoirí tearmainn i nDroichéad Átha ar an deire seachtaine.

In this episode, Kyle breaks down the recent comments from David Platt's handpicked successor concerning Charlie Kirk. Also, in the Quick Hitters segment, he discusses former Pastor Robert Morris confessing to being a pedophile but escaping justice, the fatal stabbing of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska by a man with 14 prior arrests, Trump spearheading the end of the war in Gaza and the return of all Israeli hostages, Candace Owens directly accusing the Trump Administration of assassinating Charlie Kirk, a convicted child murderer being freed after serving less than 10 years in prison, Chip and Joanna Gaines continuing to prove that they should not be admired by Christians anymore, Iraq lowering the “age of consent” for girls to marry to 9 years old, Somalia voting to allow child marriage, the United States somehow allowing for an American city to be controlled almost exclusively by Muslims, a 2-year-old girl dying in the family car while her dad was distracted watching porn, a University of Kentucky cheerleader giving birth and then disposing of her baby in a trash bag, Pope Leo saying you cannot simultaneously be pro-life and pro death penalty, allowing for a Muslim prayer room in the Vatican, and then praying for a block of ice, transgender identification plummeting among American college students, Christianity Today taking more than $1,000,000 from a pro-abortion foundation, the tranny who planned to kill Brett Kavanaugh being sentenced to only eight years in prison, Shohei Ohtani delivering the greatest single-game performance in the history of Major League Baseball, people getting the villain wrong in the now-infamous “Phillies Karen” video, my picks for the top 10 movie acting performances of the 21st Century, and much more. Let's get into it… Episode notes and links HERE. Donate to support our mission of equipping men to push back darkness. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we tackle the Supreme Court battle over Louisiana's redistricting and its far-reaching implications for voting rights. Host Jessica Levinson and NPR's Hansi Lo Wang unpack the legal fight over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, explaining how redistricting shapes the power of racial minorities and the future of partisan gerrymandering. Join us as we break down what's at stake for Congress, the states, and the promise of equal representation.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Redistricting = Real Voting Power: How district lines are drawn can dramatically dilute or amplify your vote. Redistricting is a complex, often opaque process with huge, tangible consequences for representation.Supreme Court Decisions Have National Impact: The outcome of Louisiana's case (and similar cases) could directly affect minority representation in Congress and potentially lock in partisan advantages for years to come.Tension Between Race & Partisan Politics: The debate isn't just about protecting minority voters. The Court is grappling with whether racial considerations in redistricting are required or unconstitutional, especially since partisan gerrymandering is now out of reach for federal courts.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

David Waldman returns to explain more. Sadly, the "Kavanaugh stop" won't even slow down Brett Kavanaugh. It's just another move to self-obsolescence made by the Trump Supreme Court, autographed by Brett. If you don't look right, sound right, aren't in the right place, or you cross the wrong ICES, you get your ass beat. Now that use of unnecessary violence has been approved, ICE'S leadership is being rotated out to more bloodthirsty troops and strategies. That's been working in sniffing out the sea drug suspects/corpses. We don't need skin color or accents, just the number of motors on a boat and missile coordinates. It's Tim Mellon's turn to rent the troops this week. You know Tim, don't you?... Jeffery sure did. You remember Jeffery Epstein, don't you? Donald K. Trump sure… well, maybe he remembers. Donald might not remember which way his Depends go on anymore. Donald tried to wander off in Japan but unfortunately was captured and returned to his handlers. Trump's seventy-year decline into madness is reflected in his foreign policy approach. Hey, how about Charlie Kirk's widow as editor-in-chief of NBC and CNN? It's amazing what you can do with Grok these days. Another guy working hard to make his position and branch of government obsolete is Mike Johnson, who works hard to be hardly working. The Trump boys can attest that there's a whole lot more to becoming a success in life than putting any effort into things.

Kate and Leah dig into a very busy week of legal news as Trump wields his SCOTUS-enabled executive power in increasingly unhinged ways. They also discuss continuing challenges to the president's deployment of the National Guard in blue cities, ProPublica's reporting on “Kavanaugh stops,” and, for dessert, the bonkers text exchange between Trump lackey–turned–U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan and Lawfare's Anna Bower. Then they speak with author Irin Carmon about her new book, Unbearable: Five Women and the Perils of Pregnancy in America.Favorite things:Leah: Resistance Is Cringe—But It's Also Effective, Quinta Jurecic (The Atlantic); The Democrats' Main Problem Isn't Their Message, Chris Hayes (NYT); The Peril of a White House That Flaunts Its Indifference to the Law, Charlie Savage (NYT); Everybody/Elizabeth Taylor Mashup (Backstreet Boys/Taylor Swift)Kate: Five Tuesdays in Winter, Lily King; I'm Still Here Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/events Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Top headlines for Thursday, October 23, 2025In today's episode, we cover Vice President JD Vance's urgent trip to Israel as the White House navigates the volatile Gaza situation. Meanwhile, French authorities are in a race against time to recover the stolen crown jewels from the Louvre before they vanish for good. And in a shocking revelation, an illegal alien was found to be working as a sworn U.S. police officer—until Operation Midway Blitz brought it all to light.00:11 JD Vance lands in Israel for first visit after Gaza ceasefire00:57 PCUSA presbytery helping victims of deadly Alaska storm01:48 French police using DNA at scene to catch Louvre Museum thieves02:35 Rep. Chip Roy moves to impeach judge over Kavanaugh assassin03:25 Illegal immigrant working as police officer in Illinois arrested04:17 Wisconsin seeks to end religious tax exemption after court loss05:05 ASU football player says he's 'diving into my faith completely'Subscribe to this PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle PodcastsOvercastFollow Us on Social Media@ChristianPost on TwitterChristian Post on Facebook@ChristianPostIntl on InstagramSubscribe on YouTubeGet the Edifi AppDownload for iPhoneDownload for AndroidSubscribe to Our NewsletterSubscribe to the Freedom Post, delivered every Monday and ThursdayClick here to get the top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning!Links to the NewsJD Vance lands in Israel for first visit after Gaza ceasefire | WorldPCUSA presbytery helping victims of deadly Alaska storm | Church & MinistriesFrench police using DNA at scene to catch Louvre Museum thieves | WorldRep. Chip Roy moves to impeach judge over Kavanaugh assassin | PoliticsIllegal immigrant working as police officer in Illinois arrested | U.S.Wisconsin seeks to end religious tax exemption after court loss | U.S.ASU football player says he's 'diving into my faith completely' | Sports

In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson welcomes Jan Wolfe of Reuters to break down a major Supreme Court case that could reshape voting rights nationwide. They discuss how a challenge to Louisiana's congressional map escalated into a broader attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—one of the remaining federal protections against racial discrimination in voting. Jan and Jessica unravel the complexities of the case, the Supreme Court's skepticism, and the potential consequences: from narrowing how race can be considered in redistricting, to making it much harder to bring successful claims under Section 2. The episode also takes a look at other high-profile cases on the Supreme Court's docket, including questions of executive power and social issues, highlighting the legal and political stakes at play this term.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is at a crossroads:Following the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County decision (which gutted Section 5 preclearance provisions), Section 2 remains the primary tool to challenge racially discriminatory voting practices. This case could either hobble or maintain its effectiveness, depending on how the justices rule.The current dispute reflects broader battles over race and "colorblindness":The case sits at the intersection of redistricting and the recent trend in the Court toward a “colorblind” constitutional interpretation—reminiscent of last year's affirmative action ruling. The outcome could make it significantly harder to prove voting power is being diluted due to race, with huge consequences for minority representation.The Court's decision may have national ripple effects—or remain narrow:While the justices have options ranging from a sweeping redefinition of Section 2 to a narrow ruling specific to Louisiana, the oral arguments showed splintering among conservatives and uncertainty about the ultimate path forward. Watch for possible “off ramps” that limit the case's impact nationally.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

This Day in Legal History: Clayton Antitrust Act PassedOn October 15, 1914, Congress passed the Clayton Antitrust Act, a landmark piece of legislation aimed at strengthening U.S. antitrust law and curbing anti-competitive business practices. The Act was designed to build upon the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which had proven inadequate in addressing certain forms of corporate behavior that undermined market fairness. Unlike the Sherman Act, which broadly prohibited monopolistic conduct, the Clayton Act identified specific practices as illegal when they substantially lessened competition or created a monopoly.The law targeted interlocking directorates—situations where the same individuals served on the boards of competing companies—recognizing such arrangements as fertile ground for collusion. It also outlawed price discrimination that lessened competition, exclusive dealing contracts that restricted a buyer's ability to purchase from competitors, and mergers or acquisitions that threatened market competition. Another critical provision banned tying agreements, where the sale of one product was conditioned on the purchase of another, potentially unrelated, product.The Clayton Act was notable for providing more detailed guidance to businesses and regulators, reducing ambiguity that had plagued the enforcement of the Sherman Act. It also allowed for both government and private parties to seek injunctive relief and recover damages, increasing the avenues for challenging anti-competitive behavior. Importantly, labor unions and agricultural organizations were exempted from the Act's provisions, a significant shift from previous antitrust enforcement that had often targeted labor as a “combination in restraint of trade.”This legislative move reflected the progressive era's push to check corporate power and protect consumers and smaller businesses from monopolistic abuses. The Federal Trade Commission Act, passed just weeks earlier, worked in tandem with the Clayton Act to provide an institutional mechanism—the FTC—for enforcement. Together, these laws marked a turning point in the federal government's role in regulating the economy and ensuring competitive markets.The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today in a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, a dispute that could undermine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—a key provision prohibiting electoral practices that dilute minority voting power, even without direct evidence of racist intent. The controversy centers on Louisiana's post-2020 redistricting, initially producing a map with only one Black-majority district despite Black residents comprising about a third of the state's population. A federal judge sided with Black voters who challenged the map, prompting lawmakers to draw a new version adding a second Black-majority district.That revision sparked a separate lawsuit from white voters who claimed the new map unfairly diminished their voting influence. A three-judge panel agreed, ruling the map relied too heavily on race and violated the Equal Protection Clause. The state, which had previously defended the redrawn map, has now reversed course and is urging the justices to bar race-conscious districting entirely.This marks the second time the Court will hear arguments in the case this year, after sidestepping a decision in June. With its 6-3 conservative majority, the Court could issue a ruling that weakens Section 2, building on a 2013 decision that nullified another major part of the Voting Rights Act. However, a 2023 decision saw Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh side with liberals in upholding Section 2 in an Alabama case. The outcome could impact congressional control, with Democrats warning that as many as 19 districts could be redrawn if Section 2 is curtailed.By way of brief background, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits any voting practice or procedure that results in discrimination based on race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Originally passed in 1965 and strengthened by Congress in 1982, the provision allows voters to challenge laws that either deny the right to vote outright (“vote deprivation”) or weaken the effectiveness of their vote (“vote dilution”), even if no discriminatory intent can be proven. Courts reviewing Section 2 claims consider the totality of circumstances to determine whether minority voters have an equal opportunity to participate in elections and elect candidates of their choice. In redistricting cases, plaintiffs must show that minority voters are numerous and politically unified enough to elect a representative, and that white voters typically vote as a bloc to defeat them. The Supreme Court has clarified over time that states aren't required to maximize minority districts, but race-based line drawing must strike a balance between avoiding racial discrimination and complying with equal protection principles. As other parts of the Voting Rights Act have been weakened, Section 2 has taken on even greater importance in protecting minority voting rights.US Supreme Court to hear case that takes aim at Voting Rights Act | ReutersElon Musk's $56 billion Tesla compensation package heads to the Delaware Supreme Court today, marking the final stage of a high-stakes corporate legal battle. A lower court struck down the record-setting pay plan in January 2024, ruling that Tesla's board was not sufficiently independent and that shareholders lacked vital information when they approved the deal in 2018. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery found the award unfair and applied strict legal scrutiny, igniting criticism from business leaders who argue Delaware courts are increasingly hostile to entrepreneurs.In response to the ruling, some companies—including Tesla—relocated their legal incorporation from Delaware to states like Texas and Nevada, where corporate governance laws are more lenient. This exodus, dubbed “Dexit,” prompted Delaware lawmakers to revise the state's corporate statutes in an attempt to retain business charters.Musk's legal team contends that McCormick misapplied the law and ignored evidence that Tesla shareholders were fully informed when they approved the deal. They argue the board's decision should have been reviewed under the more deferential “business judgment” standard. Despite the setback, Musk remains in line to receive billions under a replacement compensation plan approved in August, aimed at retaining him as Tesla shifts focus to robotics and autonomous technology.Tesla's board also proposed a $1 trillion future compensation framework, underscoring confidence in Musk's leadership, even as the company faces slowing EV demand and stiff competition from China. The Delaware justices will also weigh whether Tesla must pay $345 million in legal fees to the shareholder who brought the lawsuit. The Court typically takes months to issue a decision.Musk's legal fight over $56 billion payday from Tesla enters final stage | ReutersAustralia's High Court upheld the government's decision to deny far-right U.S. commentator Candace Owens a visa, citing concerns that her presence could incite social discord. Owens had applied for a visa to conduct a speaking tour in late 2024, but Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke rejected the request, referencing her history of controversial remarks—including Holocaust denial and Islamophobic statements. Owens challenged the decision, arguing that it violated the implied freedom of political communication in Australia's Constitution. The court unanimously disagreed, emphasizing that this freedom is not an absolute personal right and that the Migration Act's restrictions served a legitimate purpose in safeguarding public order.The judges found that Owens' record of inflammatory commentary—touching on issues such as race, religion, gender, and public health—posed a significant risk of social division. The ruling also noted that denying her visa was consistent with protecting Australia's national interest and social cohesion. As a result, Owens was ordered to pay the government's legal costs.Far-right US influencer Candace Owens loses legal fight to enter Australia | ReutersA federal judge ruled that the Trump administration defied a prior court order by reintroducing nearly identical immigration-related conditions for states to receive FEMA emergency preparedness grants. Judge William Smith, based in Rhode Island, had previously struck down the original grant conditions, which required state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. After his ruling, the Department of Homeland Security issued new grant documents with the same conditions, adding a clause that they would only take effect if the ruling was overturned. Smith rejected this workaround, stating that it was not a good faith attempt at compliance but a coercive tactic to pressure states into supporting federal immigration efforts.He ordered the administration to remove the conditions by the following week, emphasizing that states should not be forced to choose between upholding their policies and losing critical disaster funding. The judge characterized the move as an unlawful effort to bully states, not a legitimate policy revision. DHS did not immediately comment on the ruling. The case is one of several legal challenges brought by Democratic-led states aimed at halting parts of Trump's immigration agenda through the courts.Trump administration flouted court order on FEMA grant funding, US judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

While the What Next team celebrates Indigenous Peoples' Day, please enjoy this episode from our colleagues at Amicus, Slate's legal podcast. Mary will be back with a new episode of What Next tomorrow. In this week's episode of Amicus, we delve into the recent Supreme Court shadow docket order in Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo, which in essence legalized racial profiling by roving ICE patrols, and in practice may have ushered in America's “show your papers” era for Americans with brown skin, who speak Spanish, and/or go to Home Depot in work clothes. Join Dahlia Lithwick and Ahilan Arulanantham, a longstanding human rights lawyer and law professor, as they unpack what this unargued, unreasoned, unsigned and (in Kavanaugh's case) uncited decision means for both immigrants and U.S. citizens, for 4th amendment doctrine, and for the lower courts expected to parse SCOTUS' tea leaves.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

1. “Blue City Chaos” and Crime Policies Discussion of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about crime in major U.S. cities. The claim: 18 of the 20 most crime-ridden cities are run by Democrats. Criticism of “Soros-backed” district attorneys and “soft-on-crime” policies, particularly around bail reform, downgrading felonies, and early release of offenders. Examples cited: Alvin Bragg (New York), Deborah Gonzalez (Georgia), John Chisholm (Wisconsin). The narrative: Progressive criminal justice reforms are increasing violent crime. Senator Cruz promotes his proposed Clean DC Act, aiming to reverse DC’s 2022 crime laws. Argues that defunding police and reducing penalties have worsened crime. Mentions that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in DC reduced murder rates by 58%. The conversation portrays Democrats as anti-police and Republicans as restoring safety. 3. Government Shutdown Debate Discussion shifts to the federal government shutdown, framing Democrats as the cause. The senator claims Republicans voted repeatedly to reopen the government with a “clean CR (continuing resolution).” Blames Chuck Schumer and the far left for the stalemate, asserting they demand “health care for illegal immigrants.” References CBS polling data showing low Democratic favorability, with top public perceptions being “weak” and “extreme.” 3. Judge Sentencing & Brett Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt Strong reaction to the sentencing of Nicholas Roske, who plotted to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The judge, Deborah Boardman (a Biden appointee), is accused of issuing a lenient 8-year sentence (instead of 30) allegedly because the defendant was transgender. The conversation characterizes this as leftist judicial bias and calls for her impeachment. Senator Cruz says this demonstrates dangerous partisanship and failure to protect the rule of law. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Good Morning Liberty, Nate Thurston tackles an array of ridiculous stories from the past week. Topics include the lighter sentence for a transgender individual who plotted to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the ongoing support for violent rhetoric in politics, disputes over healthcare costs, Josh Hawley's anti-capitalist remarks, and rampant anti-Semitic accusations for posts supporting America. In addition, Nate delves into flag burning, the controversy over Amazon's worker compensation, and Rand Paul's opposition to unauthorized military actions. Tune in for a rollercoaster ride through what might be the dumbest week yet! 00:00 Intro 02:11 Dumb Bleep of the Week: Brett Kavanaugh's Would-Be Assassin 10:26 Dumb Bleep of the Week: Jay Jones' Controversial Texts 27:30 Dumb Bleep of the Week: Healthcare and ER Costs 41:06 The Rising Cost of Healthcare 41:58 Government Subsidies and Their Impact 42:41 MTG's Stance on Healthcare and Insurance 43:19 The Insurance Dilemma 45:02 Foreign Aid vs. Domestic Issues 46:19 Rand Paul's Controversial Stance on Military Action 51:30 Josh Hawley's Labor Market Concerns 54:12 Amazon's CEO Pay and Worker Wages 01:09:33 Antisemitism and Political Allegiances 01:14:47 Flag Burning Incident and Legal Implications  

Adam kicks off the show by workshopping a new stand-up bit before he and Dr. Drew dive into why America—especially Democrat-run cities—struggle to complete major construction projects. They react to Jane Fonda's recent appearance on Club Random with Bill Maher, discuss the sentencing of the man who plotted to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and give an update on Malibu's stalled rebuilding efforts.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Not even a week after a Biden judge went easy on Brett Kavanaugh's attempted assassin, another lunatic has been caught targeting conservative Supreme Court justices. The team reacts. Plus, one of the many things Charlie was passionate about was saving Kentucky from the continued McConnell Regime. Charlie-endorsed Kentucky Senate candidate Nate Morris joins Blake and Andrew to refect on his time working with Charlie, and why this race matters more than ever. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, the West is committing suicide through weakness, appeasement, and open borders, allowing a fusion of Marxists and Islamists to exploit democratic systems via immigration. It is very important that we get the hostages out of Gaza, but it's also important that Hamas is destroyed, because they will come back again. It is an ideology that doesn't die, and the West doesn't understand the ideology, or people in the West don't want to deal with it.  Anti-Semitism is spreading in Western capitals, including New York. It's a gut cancer and President Trump is the only Western leader fighting it through actions on colleges, funding, and preventing U.S. decline like Britain and France.  Also, on the second anniversary of Hamas's October 7 attack Zohran Mamdani accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of launching a genocidal war in Gaza. Mamdani is a Marxist Islamist who camouflages his Hamas-loving agenda under civil liberties rhetoric.  Mamdani is silent on Muslim-on-Muslim violence in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon by groups like Hezbollah. Later Jim Trusty calls in to discuss the lenient 97-month sentence given to Nichola Roske for attempting to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in June 2022. The Biden-appointed Judge Paula Xinis Boardman showed bias by factoring in Roske's transgender identity and leftist politics, imposing a term far below the 360-month-to-life guidelines. This kid glove treatment sets a dangerous precedent that could encourage copycat ideological attacks on constitutional figures. Trusty also criticizes lawfare tactics in Portland, where local officials submit polished affidavits claiming no need for the National Guard amid riots, downplaying issues like lasers and guillotines near ICE headquarters.  Finally, Speaker Mike Johnson calls in to explain that the Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, are using a government shutdown as a distraction and red herring to provide Schumer political cover against potential challenges from figures like AOC. The health care subsidy issue is a fabricated fight, as it was a COVID-era policy set to expire December 31 by Democrats themselves. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.On today's edition of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discusses SCOTUS oral arguments hearing on so-called ‘conversion therapy' case from Colorado, an egregious ruling lessening a federal sentence for Justice Kavanaugh's would-be killer because the man claims a transgender identity, and the need for Christians to pray for political officials.Part I (00:14 – 16:52)Will the Nation Respect the Freedom of Speech of Christians? SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments on So-Called ‘Conversion Therapy'Chiles v. Salazar by The Supreme Court of the United StatesPart II (16:52 – 25:13)Another Transgender (Would-Be) Killer? Federal Judge Hands Down Egregious Ruling for Justice Kavanaugh's Would-Be Killer Because the Killer Claims a Transgender IdentityKavanaugh's Would-Be Assassin Is a Man by The Wall Street Journal (Matthew Hennessy)Part III (25:13 – 26:49)Christians, Pray For Your Leaders: We Must Be Praying for Our Political Officials at Every LevelPolice: Man arrested at D.C. Catholic church had 200 homemade explosives by The Washington Post (Emma Uber)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

Michael Malice (“YOUR WELCOME”) invites podcast host and political commentator, Tim Pool, onto the show to discuss the crazy happenings in Chicago right now between ICE and the local police, the ramifications of the sentencing in the Brett Kavanaugh assassination attempt, and what Tim predicts will happen in the next year when it comes to opposing views and political violence. https://x.com/timcasthttps://timcast.com/https://www.youtube.com/TimcastOrder NOT SICK OF WINNING: http://notsickofwinning.comOrder THE WHITE PILL: http://whitepillbook.com/Order THE ANARCHIST HANDBOOK: https://www.amzn.com/B095DVF8FJOrder THE NEW RIGHT: https://amzn.to/2IFFCCuOrder DEAR READER: https://t.co/vZfTVkK6qf?amp=1https://twitter.com/michaelmalicehttps://instagram.com/michaelmalicehttps://malice.locals.comhttps://youtube.com/michaelmaliceofficialIntro song: "Out of Reach" by Legendary House Cats https://thelegendaryhousecats.bandcamp.com/The newest episode of "YOUR WELCOME" releases on iTunes and YouTube every Wednesday! Please subscribe and leave a review.This week's sponsors: Brunt Workwear – Comfortable and Durable Work Boots: https://www.BruntWorkwear.com , promo code: MALICE ($10 off)OneSkin – Transforming Skin and Hair at the Cellular Level: https://www.OneSkin.co/Hair , code: MALICE (15% off) PDS Debt – Become Debt Free: https://www.PDSDebt.com/welcome (Free Debt Assessment) PlutoTV – Streaming TV: https://www.Pluto.tv (Free) SimpliSafe – Stop Crime Before It Starts: https://www.SimpliSafe.com/Malice (50% off)See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Ben opens with the Virginia firestorm around attorney general candidate Jay Jones. He details the reported texts, plays the apology, and reacts to Gov. Glenn Youngkin's response. He also lays out why this controversy raises questions about early voting and accountability.Maria Bartiromo joins Ben to talk AI bias, jobs, and how to keep perspective with new tech. She explains why social platforms should be liable when they act like news outlets, and walks through her 3:45 a.m. routine, live breaking news prep, and why her show is beating CNBC in the mornings. She also shares how to teach kids about money with simple habits that build independence.Investigative journalist Luke Rosiak stops by to break down the latest on the Kavanaugh case sentencing and what it means for deterrence and equal justice.Finally, Ben looks at the CBS shake up and what Bari Weiss moving into legacy media could mean for real journalism, independent voices, and reaching audiences beyond the bubble.COMMENT DOWN BELOW: Give us your best tips and tricks on how you save money for your family! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks about The View's Whoopi Goldberg shocking Joy Behar and her other co-hosts by suggesting that attendants of the Super Bowl halftime show by Bad Bunny should arrive in brownface to confuse Kristi Noem and her ICE agents; Donald Trump getting the press to laugh with his critique of Greta Thunberg's failed attempt to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza as a part of the Global Samud Flotilla which was intercepted by Israel; Nicholas Roske, or Sophie Roske as mainstream outlets have been referring to him, being given a lenient sentence by Judge Deborah Boardman for his planned assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh; White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt shutting down a reporter questioning why the National Guard was still involved in preventing crime in Washington D.C.; Meet the Press' Kristen Welker getting Hakeem Jeffries to go completely silent as she showed him proof that Democrats have flip flopped on their position of a government shutdown; the Real Time with Bill Maher audience being shocked as Van Jones called the Democratic party stupid for causing a federal government shutdown at the worst possible time; Andrew Cuomo trying to explain to The View's Alyssa Farah Griffin the real reason New Yorkers are being fooled into voting for a Democrat Socialist like Zohran Mamdani; and much more. Today's Sponsors: BeBetterNow- If you or your partner is over 55 and dealing with bladder urgency, you know—it's more than just a minor inconvenience. Go to http://BeBetterNow.com and get 10% off your first order with code Rubin10. Harvest Right - Use a Harvest Right freeze dryer. It handles all the freezing, vacuum sealing, and drying automatically. You can build food security that is reliable, cost-effective, and actually delicious. Go to: http://harvestright.com/rubin for a Harvest Right Home Freeze Dryer. CBDistillery.com- Struggling with poor sleep or aches and pains? Take the advice of our over 2 million satisfied customers. Use CBD after physical activity for reductions in stress and pain. Use code RUBIN to save up to 25% off. Go to: http://CBDistillery.com and enter PROMO CODE: RUBIN

Today on The Editors, Rich, Charlie, Noah, and Audrey discuss Bari Weiss's move to CBS, the Jay Jones controversy, and much more.Editors' Picks:Rich: Jeff Blehar's piece "Brett Kavanaugh's Would-Be Assassin Gets Time Off for Trans Behavior"Charlie: Dominic Pino's Jolt "Congress Should Eliminate the ‘Shutdown' Charade"Noah: Jack Butler's post "Stay Athwart"Audrey: NR's Editorial "Anniversary of a Horror"Light Items:Rich: CoffeeCharlie: Yesterday's football gameNoah: Country dog problemsAudrey: Meyer lemon treeSponsors:Made InExpressVPNThis podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sarah Isgur and David Lat cover the Supreme Court's long conference and react to the sentencing of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's attempted assassin. The Agenda:—Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal rejected—Missouri gun laws—Hawaii's "Spirit of Aloha" gun laws—Fifth Amendment takings clause—Sentencing of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's attempted assassin—Will Obergefell be overturned? Show Notes:—Advisory Opinions on Hawaii's gun laws—David Lat's Original Jurisdiction 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

 President Trump considers invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to send the National Guard to Chicago after Mayor Brandon Johnson and Governor JB Pritzker declared the area an "ICE Free Zone." Why the left hopes an unhinged lunatic takes the bait and starts a civil war. Stephen Miller destroys CNN on live TV and conservative journalist Nick Sortor reveals he's gotten "Charlie Kirk- style" death threats from Antifa goons on the streets in Portland. Two senators call for the impeachment of the judge who went super soft on Justice Kavanaugh's tranny would-be assassin.

1. The “Schumer Shutdown” We begin with the ongoing government shutdown as the fault of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Party. They claim Democrats are panicking and have no political “off-ramp,” predicting that the standoff will end with “complete capitulation” from Democrats. The conversation includes discussion of polling data (allegedly showing poor favorability ratings for Democrats), arguments that Democrats are “weak” and “extreme,” and mockery of Democratic leaders through AI-generated memes that portray them wearing sombreros and mustaches. Cruz and Ferguson frame the situation as a political win for Republicans, portraying Democrats as incoherent and divided, and suggesting that the shutdown reveals the public’s indifference to big government. 2. The Brett Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt and Sentencing The second segment focuses on a federal judge’s sentencing of Nicholas Roske, who had plotted to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Cruz and Ferguson express outrage over what they claim was an unjustly lenient eight-year sentence, arguing that it reflects “left-wing bias” and preferential treatment because the assailant was transgender. They sharply criticize Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, for what they call “ideological” leniency, with Cruz suggesting she should be impeached. The hosts expand the issue into a broader critique of Democratic “soft-on-crime” policies and claim a cultural double standard favoring certain identities (e.g., transgender individuals). The conversation also ties the Kavanaugh incident to Democratic rhetoric, suggesting it encourages “left-wing violence.” Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Megyn Kelly discusses the rise of violent rhetoric and actual violence from the left, the assassinations and attempted assassinations that all seem to be in one direction and aimed at the right, violent criminals in the country illegally, leftist attacks on ICE agents throughout America, the disturbing and violent leaked text messages from Virginia AG candidate Jay Jones, how it shows a confirmation of a dangerous worldview some on the left hold, the Kavanaugh attempted assassin declaring he is transgender now and a woman, the light sentence he received from a liberal judge, and more. Byrna: Go to https://Byrna.com or your local Sportsman's Warehouse today.Riverbend Ranch: Visit https://riverbendranch.com/ | Use promo code MEGYN for $20 off your first order.Firecracker Farm: Visit https://firecracker.FARM & enter code MK at checkout for a special discount!Jacked Up Fitness: Get the all-new Shake Weight by Jacked Up Fitness at https://JackedUpShakeWeight.com  Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Shocking and violent texts sent by Democratic AG candidate in Virginia Jay Jones aimed at his political opponents emerge. The man found guilty of the attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh - who now claims to be a woman - given a light sentence. Sean "Diddy" Combs is sentenced to a little more than 4 years in prison. Former NFL player and current Fox Sports analyst Mark Sanchez is stabbed, and then arrested, in a bizarre story. Riverbend Ranch: Visit https://riverbendranch.com/ | Use promo code MEGYN for $20 off your first order.Lean: Visit https://TakeLean.com & use code MK for 20% off Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

President Trump says Israel and Hamas have agreed to his peace proposal and will soon begin ending the war in Gaza, Mexican drug cartels have put bounties on ICE agents, and the transgender man who attempted to kill Justice Kavanaugh gets a sweetheart deal from a Biden-appointed Judge. Get the facts first with Morning Wire. Get the facts first with Morning Wire. - - - Wake up with new Morning Wire merch: https://bit.ly/4lIubt3 - - - Today's Sponsors: Balance of Nature - Go to https://balanceofnature.com and use promo code WIRE for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer PLUS get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice. American Beverage Association - Learn more about America's beverage companies at https://WeDeliverForAmerica.org - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy morning wire,morning wire podcast,the morning wire podcast,Georgia Howe,John Bickley,daily wire podcast,podcast,news podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Hawk is dominating AI Slop online, Mark Sanchez charged with felony, Rush returns, Charlize Theron v. Johnny Depp, David Montgomery's tough life, Trudi stalking Todd Rundgren, and Drew remains incurious. The Detroit Tigers blew game 2 as the Seattle Mariners tie series at 1 game apiece. Will Comerica Park change names now that they've been bought by Fifth Third Bank? Trudi remains hungry. Stephen Hawking AI videos are all the rage on the internet today thanks to Sora. Music: Rush is back! They have a new chick drummer now (no, it's not Nandi). Drew is loving some Poison Vine by Cast. Tay Tay's album is selling just fine. Swift's movie is doing ok as well. Former Lemonheads singer Evan Dando loves drugs. Ace Frehley cancels remaining tour… including his stop in Detroit on October 31st. Trudi is stalking Todd Rundgren. The Mark Sanchez stabbing incident is bizarre. We check out his WhosDatedWho (nice). TMZ stretched the story a little too long. Charlize Theron vs Johnny Depp. Total SNUB. Sports: Detroit Lions DB Terrion Arnold is injured “for a long time”. David Montgomery has had a lot of tough breaks. Angel Reese retired her mom. The Buffalo Bills failed on Sunday Night Football to the New England Patriots. Karl Hamburger and Shuli Egar have a GoFundMe going to battle Stuttering John's lawsuit. CBS News has hired Bari Weiss as Editor-In-Chief. Diddy might not be safe in prison. Chicago PD was told to stand down to assist ICE Agents under attack. There was an assassination attempt on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 20/20 did a piece on the disappearance of the McStay family. Drew is going to the Detroit Tigers game tomorrow… Maz-free. If you'd like to help support the show… consider subscribing to our YouTube Channel, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter (Drew Lane, Marc Fellhauer, Trudi Daniels, Jim Bentley and BranDon).

On this episode of “The Liz Wheeler Show,” Liz blasts Maryland District Judge Deborah Boardman for giving Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's transgender would-be assassin, Nicholas Roske, a light prison sentence. Boardman appears to have made this decision based on political ideology rather than justice. SPONSORS: ALL FAMILY PHARMACY: Because you're part of this movement, use code LIZ10 at checkout for an exclusive discount. Check out https://allfamilypharmacy.com/LIZ, code: LIZ10. MASA CHIPS: Go to http://www.MASAChips.com/LIZWHEELER and use code “LIZWHEELER” for 25% off your first order. Don't feel like ordering online? That's fine; MASA is now available nationwide at your local Sprouts supermarket. CROWD HEALTH: Join CrowdHealth to get started today for $99 for your first three months, using code “LIZ” at http://www.JoinCrowdHealth.com. CrowdHealth is not insurance. Opt Out, take your power back – this is how we win. -- Get the full audio show on all major podcast platforms: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-liz-wheeler-show/id1567701295 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4LhlHfocr5gMnLj4l573iI iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-liz-wheeler-show-82737301/ Subscribe to The Liz Wheeler Show newsletter: https://lizwheeler.com/email Get VIP access to The Liz Wheeler Show on Locals: https://lizwheeler.locals.com/. Stay in touch with Liz on social media: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@lizwheeler Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OfficialLizWheeler Twitter: https://twitter.com/Liz_Wheeler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/OfficialLizWheeler Rumble: https://rumble.com/LizWheeler Website: https://lizwheeler.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

- Virginia Attorney General candidate Jay Jones is exposed for violent text messages calling for the murder of political opponents and even their children. - Portland and Chicago police are ordered to “stand down” as ICE agents face violent Antifa attacks. - The attempted assassin of Justice Brett Kavanaugh receives just eight years in prison after claiming a new transgender identity. - Mark Sanchez is stabbed, arrested, and humiliated after an altercation with a 69-year-old truck driver in Indianapolis. Today's podcast is sponsored by :   QUINCE : Layer up this fall with clothing & accessories that feel as good as they look! Go to http://quince.com/gerry for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too. Listen to Newsmax LIVE and see our entire podcast lineup at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://Newsmax.com/Listen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://NewsmaxPlus.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Looking for NEWSMAX caps, tees, mugs & more? Check out the Newsmax merchandise shop at : ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://nws.mx/shop⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow NEWSMAX on Social Media:  -Facebook: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://nws.mx/FB⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  -X/Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://nws.mx/twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://nws.mx/IG⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://youtube.com/NewsmaxTV⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Rumble: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://rumble.com/c/NewsmaxTV⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -TRUTH Social: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://truthsocial.com/@NEWSMAX⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -GETTR: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://gettr.com/user/newsmax⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Threads: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://threads.net/@NEWSMAX⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  -Telegram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://t.me/newsmax⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  -BlueSky: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bsky.app/profile/newsmax.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Parler: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://app.parler.com/newsmax⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Steven Pinker joins to discuss his new book, When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life, exploring how shared awareness coordinates everything from markets to manners. He traces spirals of silence, costly signals, and why a single public moment can flip private hunches into history. Also: the sentencing in the intended assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh — what the court record shows about Nicholas (Sophie) Roske's change of mind, and why eight years can be both just and long. And in the Spiel: the Supreme Court's new term, and an un-panicked look at Trump's shadow-docket “wins,” what the justices actually stayed, and why. Produced by Corey Wara Production Coordinator Ashley Khan Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠GIST INSTAGRAM⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow The Gist List at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Pesca⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack

Kylee Griswold, managing editor at The Federalist and host of The Kylee Cast, is in for Jim on Monday's 3 Martini Lunch. Today, Kylee and Greg discuss the Virginia Democrats' attorney general nominee Jay Jones and his extensive texts wishing death for a political opponent and his children. They also discuss the ridiculously light sentence for the man who tried to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the media finally admitting facts about the D.C. crime rate that the right was touting months ago.First, they unpack the disturbing 2022 texts from the Virginia Democrats' current attorney general nominee, Jay Jones, who repeatedly told a Republican colleague he'd like "two bullets to the head" of then–House Speaker Todd Gilbert and even wished death upon Gilbert's child so it might convince Gilbert to change his mind on policy. Kylee and Greg break down Jones's weak responses to the scandal and the largely indifferent reaction from Virginia Democrats.Next, they recoil at a federal judge sentencing the man who plotted and tried to kill Justice Kavanaugh and other conservative justices after the Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked. While the Justice Department recommended 30 years in prison, Judge Deborah Boardman sentenced Nicholas Roske to only eight years. And a major factor seems to be that Roske started identifying as a woman after his arrest and Judge Boardman was worried about Roske in a men's prison. But Kylee also explains even more egregious actions by Boardman to whittle the sentence down to eight years.Finally, they shake their heads as The Washington Post suddenly discovers that D.C. police officials have been downgrading serious charges to make crime stats look better. Trump supporters pointed out this manipulation months ago when the president ordered a 30-day federal takeover of D.C. policing, but the media dismissed it at the time. Why won't they tell the truth when it matters?Please visit our great sponsors:Open a new qualified IRA or cash account with Noble Gold and get a free 10-ounce Silver Flag Bar plus a Silver American Eagle Proof Coin—visit https://NobleGoldInvestments.com/3MLSupport your health with Dose Daily.  Save 25% on your first month when you subscribe at https://DoseDaily.co/3ML or enter code 3ML at checkout.OneSkin uses the patented OS-01 Peptide™ to improve skin and scalp health at the cellular level—try it now with 15% off using code 3ML at https://OneSkin.co

The attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh suspect was given an easy sentence because he's trans.  Visit the Howie Carr Radio Network website to access columns, podcasts, and other exclusive content.

The Virginia Democrat Nominee for Attorney General, Jay Jones, sent texts fantasizing about murdering the former GOP Speaker as Virginia Democrats doubled down in support of Jones. The Transgender man who planned to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh will serve just 8 years. Kamala Harris continues to claim that 2024 was the closest race of the century. The Speaker of the House in Virginia spoke in a church pulpit telling congregants to ignore Jay Jones's call for the assassination of the prior Speaker and murder of his kids because of politics. Democrat Abigail Spanberger is out fundraising Republican Winsome Sears for Governor of Virginia. Dana explains how someone like Jay Jones is dangerous if they get power. Fingerprint scans are coming for American travelers to most of Europe in a new policy. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson declares the right-wing of America wants a "Civil War" rematch. Israel prepares to implement the 'first stage' of Trump's Gaza peace plan. Steak ‘n Shake announces it is installing "the tallest and biggest American flag that local governments will allow" at every restaurant across the country. Disney CEO Bob Iger reinstated Jimmy Kimmel after the cancellation threatened a glitzy party he and his wife were hosting. Stephen Yates from Heritage joins us on Japan's Prime Minister election, America's colleges working with the CCP & more.Thank you for supporting our sponsors that make The Dana Show possible…Noble Gold https://NobleGoldInvestments.com/DanaOpen a new qualified IRA or cash account with Noble Gold and get a free 10-ounce Silver Flag Bar plus a Silver American Eagle Proof Coin.Webroothttps://Webroot.com/danaChange your October from cyber-scary to cyber-secure with 60% off Webroot Total Protection.AmmoSquaredhttps://AmmoSquared.comDon't get caught without ammo and be sure to tell them you heard about Ammo Squared on this show. HumanNhttps://HumanN.comStart supporting your cardiovascular health with SuperBeets now available at your local Walmart. ChapterFor free and unbiased Medicare help from my partners Chapter, dial #250 and say keyword “My Medicare”Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and stand-alone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan's contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently, we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don't directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all of your options.PreBornhttps://PreBorn.com/DANA Or DIAL #250 Say the keyword BABY. That's #250, BABY. Together, we can save lives — one mom and one baby at a time.Keltechttps://KelTecWeapons.comKelTec builds every KS7 GEN2 right here in the USA with American materials and workers—upgrade your home defense today. All Family Pharmacyhttps://AllFamilyPharmacy.com/Dana Don't wait until flu season knocks at your door. Use code DANA10 at checkout to save 10%. Relief Factorhttps://ReliefFactor.com OR CALL 1-800-4-RELIEFTurn the clock back on pain with Relief Factor. Get their 3-week Relief Factor Quick Start for only $19.95 today! Byrnahttps://Byrna.com/danaGet your hands on the new compact Byrna CL. Visit Byrna.com/Dana to receive 10% off Patriot Mobilehttps://PatriotMobile.com/DanaDana's personal cell phone provider is Patriot Mobile. Get a FREE MONTH of service code DANA

The Transgender man who planned to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh will serve just 8 years. Steak ‘n Shake announces it is installing "the tallest and biggest American flag that local governments will allow" at every restaurant across the country. Disney CEO Bob Iger reinstated Jimmy Kimmel after the cancellation threatened a glitzy party he and his wife were hosting.Thank you for supporting our sponsors that make The Dana Show possible…Noble Gold https://NobleGoldInvestments.com/DanaOpen a new qualified IRA or cash account with Noble Gold and get a free 10-ounce Silver Flag Bar plus a Silver American Eagle Proof Coin.Webroothttps://Webroot.com/danaChange your October from cyber-scary to cyber-secure with 60% off Webroot Total Protection.AmmoSquaredhttps://AmmoSquared.comDon't get caught without ammo and be sure to tell them you heard about Ammo Squared on this show. HumanNhttps://HumanN.comStart supporting your cardiovascular health with SuperBeets now available at your local Walmart. ChapterFor free and unbiased Medicare help from my partners Chapter, dial #250 and say keyword “My Medicare”Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and stand-alone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan's contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently, we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don't directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all of your options.PreBornhttps://PreBorn.com/DANA Or DIAL #250 Say the keyword BABY. That's #250, BABY. Together, we can save lives — one mom and one baby at a time.Keltechttps://KelTecWeapons.comKelTec builds every KS7 GEN2 right here in the USA with American materials and workers—upgrade your home defense today. All Family Pharmacyhttps://AllFamilyPharmacy.com/Dana Don't wait until flu season knocks at your door. Use code DANA10 at checkout to save 10%. Relief Factorhttps://ReliefFactor.com OR CALL 1-800-4-RELIEFTurn the clock back on pain with Relief Factor. Get their 3-week Relief Factor Quick Start for only $19.95 today! Byrnahttps://Byrna.com/danaGet your hands on the new compact Byrna CL. Visit Byrna.com/Dana to receive 10% off Patriot Mobilehttps://PatriotMobile.com/DanaDana's personal cell phone provider is Patriot Mobile. Get a FREE MONTH of service code DANA

 Who's worse for Virginia? A democrat candidate for Attorney General who openly calls for the murder of an opponent, AND his wife AND his kids? Or a democrat gubernatorial candidate who taught at a Saudi Islamic academy with connections to HAMAS? A Biden-appointed judge gives a soft sentence to Justice Brett Kavanaugh's would-be assassin and the DOJ gets involved. Trust in the media plummet to YET ANOTHER all-time low.

New cases heading for SCOTUS the media is melting down over; the media helps out the would-be trans killer who plotted to kill Justice Kavanaugh; CBS News gets taken over by Bari Weiss. Plus, the Chicago PD was given an order to not respond to any calls for help from the feds while Antifa riots.

Howie Kurtz on Bari Weiss being named editor-in-chief of CBS news, Kavanaugh's attempted assassin getting a short 8-year sentence and negotiators from Israel and Hamas meeting in Egypt to hash out details on peace plan. Follow Howie on Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@HowardKurtz⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠For more #MediaBuzz click here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tim, Ian, Luke, & Tate are joined by Catalina Lauf to discuss Nick Sortor being arrested by Portland Police, Justice Kavanaugh would-be assassin being sentenced to 8 years in prison, Catalina Lauf shocking Timcast crew by admitting AOC was an inspiration, and a massive Chinese Sim Farm operation being exposed.   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Luke @WeAreChange (everywhere) Tate @RealTateBrown (everywhere) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Catalina Lauf @CatalinaLauf (X)

Government Shutdown Narrative Democrats blamed for deliberately causing the shutdown for political reasons. Framed as Chuck Schumer’s attempt to appeal to progressive factions like AOC. House Republicans passed a “clean CR” (continuing resolution) to keep government funding stable, but Democrats rejected it. Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants Democrats WANT taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants. Cited past Democratic presidential debate where all candidates raised hands in support of coverage for undocumented immigrants. References to California and New York already providing state-level healthcare to undocumented immigrants. Argument that Democrats are gaslighting the public by denying this stance. Crime in “Blue Cities” Senate Judiciary Committee hearing highlighted as focusing on rising crime rates in Democrat-led cities. Claims that progressive DAs, often linked to George Soros funding, refuse to prosecute violent criminals. Examples cited: New York, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Milwaukee DA cases. Pattern described of criminals repeatedly being released and reoffending. Defund the Police & Bail Reform Criticism of Democratic-led efforts to defund or reduce police funding (examples: Minneapolis, New York, Austin). Soros-backed DAs accused of eliminating cash bail, downgrading felonies, and prioritizing criminals over victims. Proposed Solutions Sen. Cruz mentions his “Clean DC Act,” aimed at reversing soft-on-crime laws in Washington, D.C. Advocates stronger penalties and more police support. Credits Trump with using the National Guard to reduce crime in DC. Left-Wing Violence Democratic rhetoric is causing violent outcomes (e.g., BLM riots, anti-Semitic incidents, ICE facility attacks). Claims left-wing activists celebrate violence while conservatives condemn it. Mentions assassination attempts (Trump, Justice Kavanaugh) and murder of Charlie Kirk as examples of left-inspired violence. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Plus Chaos in Portland outside an ICE facility... For more coverage on the issues that matter to you, download the WMAL app, visit WMAL.com or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 9:00am-12:00pm Monday-Friday  To join the conversation, check us out on Twitter @WMAL and @ChrisPlanteShow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week, we're unpacking a tale of two shutdowns—and spoiler alert: they're both Trump's.First, the government shutdown:  Why are Republicans celebrating a government shutdown while simultaneously blaming Democrats for it? How can they claim it's the "Schumer Shutdown" when they control all three branches of government? And why can't they keep their messaging straight—celebrating the shutdown on Newsmax while condemning it in Congress?We'll reveal what 71% (you read that right, seventy-one percent!) of Americans actually think about ACA subsidies (hint: they want them extended). And just over half want the Democrats to shut down the government to get those subsidies for them.And then, the shutdown of norms and decency:  From Newt Gingrich's revisionist history in the New York Times to Bari Weiss taking over CBS News, from "Kavanaugh stops" to flashbang grenades in residential hallways—we're connecting the dots on the authoritarian playbook in action.  The jackboots aren't coming. They're already here.All that and more in this edition of The Professional Left Podcast. More at proleftpod.com.Not safe for work. Recorded live from the Cornfield Resistance.Stay in Touch! Email: proleftpodcast@gmail.comWebsite: proleftpod.comSupport via Patreon: patreon.com/proleftpodMail: The Professional Left, PO Box 9133, Springfield, Illinois, 62791Support the show

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

After Dark with Hosts Rob & Andrew – Democrats escalate rhetoric that fuels hostility, branding opponents as fascists and Nazis while encouraging violent acts. Conservatives face deadly consequences, from the assassination of Charlie Kirk to attacks on Steve Scalise, Brett Kavanaugh, and Donald Trump. The pattern reveals a one-sided trend of left-wing extremism threatening free speech, democracy, and civil discourse across...

The man who attempted to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh now faces 30 years in prison–and identifies as a transgender woman, Senate Democrats sink a stopgap bill that would've averted a government shutdown, and is cocaine making a comeback? Get the facts first with Evening Wire. - - - Wake up with new Morning Wire merch: https://bit.ly/4lIubt3 - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy morning wire,morning wire podcast,the morning wire podcast,Georgia Howe,John Bickley,daily wire podcast,podcast,news podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices