Podcasts about judicial nominations

This podcast episode gives a critical analysis of the current political landscape, focusing on the potential implications of Donald Trump's potential second presidential term and the systematic erosion of democratic institutions. Hawk provides a comprehensive overview of Trump's potential cabinet selections, highlighting concerns about the qualifications and ethical backgrounds of proposed nominees, including individuals facing serious allegations of misconduct.He extensively explores the broader political context, including voter suppression tactics, targeted attempts to disenfranchise minority populations, and the strategic attacks on voting processes in key swing states. Hawk specifically emphasizes how these efforts are fundamentally rooted in racial discrimination, pointing to targeted challenges in cities with significant African-American and Latino populations such as Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Phoenix.This episode also examines emerging tensions within political representation, particularly surrounding issues of identity and inclusion. Hawk critically analyzes the hostile reception of Sarah McBride, the first transgender representative, by Republican colleagues like Nancy Mace and Marjorie Taylor Greene, positioning this as symptomatic of broader systemic attempts to marginalize and delegitimize diverse political representation. The narrative suggests a deepening political polarization that threatens fundamental democratic principles of representation and equal rights. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk- Support Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com- Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct- Connect on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Podcasts Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.com- Listen to Hawk Droppings On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTBSimplecast: https://hawk-droppings.simplecast.com- Hawk Droppings RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/pPVtxSNJ

The 2024 presidential election is behind us. Now, the second Trump administration looks poised to pick up where the first left off in its effort to reshape the federal judiciary in the conservative legal movement's image. ACS President and former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold joins Christopher Wright Durocher to discuss prospects for the current Senate to confirm President Biden's remaining judicial nominees to mitigate the damage of more Trump-appointed judges and to discuss what progressives can do about the courts right now and over the next four years.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Christopher Wright Durocher, Vice President of Policy and ProgramGuest: Russ Feingold, ACS PresidentLink: Judicial Nominations, ACS Link: On the Bench: Tracking President Biden's Judicial Nominations, ACSLink: ACS Pledges to Continue Fight for Rule of Law and Progressive CommunityVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law PodcastEmail the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.orgFollow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube-----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2024.

Josh Hammer provides some pressing SCOTUS updates during today's "around the horn" before today's "deep dive" explains why conservatives are not getting consistent victories from this putatively right-of-center Supreme Court. What has to change on the Right, moving forward, when it comes to judicial nominations? Josh then offers his reaction to Joe Biden's utterly disastrous debate performance during today's "closing argument" segment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Marc Cox as he tackles pressing topics including US-Israel relations and Netanyahu's accusations against the US, illegal immigration and related crimes, the Missouri gubernatorial race and taxes, mental healthcare laws and issues, and judicial nominations. This episode features insightful interviews with Jim Carafano from the Heritage Foundation and Missouri state senator Bill Eigle

Host: Ann Luther, League of Women Voters of Maine Production Assistance: Joel Mann The mostly volunteer team at the League of Women Voters – Downeast who plan and coordinate this series includes: Martha Dickinson, Ruth Eveland, Michael Fisher, Claire Fox, Starr Gilmartin, Maggie Harling, Ann Luther, Rick Lyles, Judith Lyles, Wendilee O'Brien, Leah Taylor, and Linda Washburn. Democracy Forum: Participatory Democracy, encouraging citizens to take an active role in government and politics This month: We talk about the Maine judiciary. 1. How are judges chosen in Maine? 2. Compare Maine’s judicial selection process to the federal system and to other states. 3. What standards of judicial ethics apply? 4. Are judges in Maine subject to undue influence by narrow special or partisan interests? 5. Are judges in Maine facing escalating threats, the way judges are in other states? 6. What insulates Maine? How fragile are our protections? Guest/s: – Leigh Saufley, President and Dean of the University of Maine School of Law, former Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. mainelaw.maine.edu/faculty/profile/leigh-i-saufley/ – David Sachar, Director of Judicial Ethics at the National Center for State Courts. www.ncsc.org/staff-directory/staff/david-sachar – Dmitry Bam, Vice Dean/Provost, Professor of Law at the University of Maine School of Law. mainelaw.maine.edu/faculty/profile/dmitry-bam/ To learn more about this topic: 1. Judicial Nominations | Office of Governor Janet T. Mills www.maine.gov/governor/mills/about/judicial_nominations 2. Maine Judicial Branch courts.maine.gov/ 3. State of Maine Judicial Responsibility and Disability Committee www.cjc.maine.gov/index.html 4. How to file a judicial complaint in Maine www.cjc.maine.gov/file_complaint.html 5. Can State Supreme Courts Preserve—or Expand—Rights? | The New Yorker, June 2024 www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/06/10/can-state-supreme-courts-preserve-or-expand-rights 6. Defense attorneys, ACLU question whether new bail reviews for unrepresented defendants are working | Portland Press Herald, May 2024 www.pressherald.com/2024/05/28/defense- attorneys-aclu-question-if-new-bail-reviews-for-unrepresented-defendants-are-actually-working/?uuid=43807610-1735-4ac6-af9e-fed1faa9554c&lid=12766 7. Probate court reform overdue | Editorials | ellsworthamerican.com, May 2024 www.ellsworthamerican.com/opinion/editorials/probate-court-reform-overdue/article_32f84f7a-eadf-11ee-b70f-0f051fa172be.html 8. Maine officials seek suspension of Hancock County probate judge | BDN, April 2024 www.bangordailynews.com/2024/04/10/hancock/hancock-police-courts/seek-suspension-william-blaisdell-iv-probate-judge-joam40zk0w/ 9. Judges and Prosecutors, Targeted by Trump, Will Not Be Intimidated, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, April 2024 lucid.substack.com/p/judges-and-prosecutors-targeted-by 10. Judicial Leaders Praise Federal Bill to Protect State Judges | NCSC, March 2024 www.ncsc.org/newsroom/news-releases/2024/judicial-leaders-praise-federal-bill-to-protect-state-judges2 11. Maine’s chief justice cites progress and challenges for backlogged court system | Maine Public, February 2024 www.mainepublic.org/courts-and-crime/2024-02-21/maines-chief-justice-cites-progress-and-challenges-for-backlogged-court-system 12. Maine’s Part-Time Court | Maine Monitor, June 2023 themainemonitor.org/maines-part-time-court/ 13. Maine courts may take until 2028 to touch backlog of cases | Maine Monitor, March 2023 themainemonitor.org/maine-courts-may-take-until-2028-to-touch-backlog-of-cases/ About the host: Ann currently serves as Treasurer of the League of Women Voters of Maine and leads the LWVME Advocacy Team. She served as President of LWVME from 2003 to 2007 and as co-president from 2007-2009. In her work for the League, Ann has worked for greater public understanding of public policy issues and for the League's priority issues in Clean Elections & Campaign Finance Reform, Voting Rights, Ethics in Government, Ranked Choice Voting, and Repeal of Term Limits. Representing LWVME at Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, she served that coalition as co-president from 2006 to 2011. She remains on the board of MCCE and serves as Treasurer. She is active in the LWV-Downeast and hosts their monthly radio show, The Democracy Forum, on WERU FM Community Radio -which started out in 2004 as an recurring special, and became a regular monthly program in 2012. She was the 2013 recipient of the Baldwin Award from the ACLU of Maine for her work on voting rights and elections. She joined the League in 1998 when she retired as Senior Vice President at SEI Investments. Ann was a founder of the MDI Restorative Justice Program, 1999 – 2000, and served on its Executive Board. The post Democracy Forum 6/21/24: Order in the Court: Who's Your Judge? first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

On this day in legal history, October 24, the United Nations came into being.On October 24, 1945, a major milestone in international legal history was achieved with the ratification of the Charter of the United Nations. This marked the formal establishment of the United Nations (UN), an organization conceived at that time with the noble aim of promoting global peace, security, and cooperation among nations. This day saw the culmination of efforts that began much earlier, during the turbulent times of World War II, aimed at preventing future generations from the scourge of war.The ratification of the Charter represented a collective global aspiration for a new era of international law and diplomacy. On this day, a majority of signatory nations ratified the Charter, symbolizing their commitment to adhere to the principles of international law, uphold human rights, and promote social progress in their respective territories and globally.The United Nations emerged as the successor to the League of Nations, which had failed to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War. The Charter's ratification was not merely a legal formality but a beacon of hope for a war-ravaged world. It symbolized a global consensus on the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.This day also witnessed the birth of the UN's principal organs, including the General Assembly and the Security Council, which were entrusted with the monumental task of maintaining international peace and security. The Charter's provisions laid the foundation for international law, setting a precedent for multilateral diplomacy and cooperation.October 24, now celebrated as United Nations Day, commemorates the ratification of the Charter and the establishment of the UN, reminding the global community of the enduring values of international cooperation and the pursuit of peace. This day, enshrined in legal history, continues to inspire nations to work together towards a more equitable and peaceful world.On this day, let's reflect on the vision encapsulated in the Charter and the ongoing journey of the United Nations in navigating the complex landscape of international relations and law, striving to fulfill the lofty ideals set forth on that historic day in 1945. Through the lens of legal history, October 24 stands as a testament to the power of international law and the potential of collective action in shaping a better future for humanity.Of course, let us not only reflect on the lofty aspirations the UN was born in to, but the many shortcomings and failings it has seen–endeavoring, in the small part that we can, to plot a course forward that brings us closer to the ideals set forth in 1945. U.S. Senator Bob Menendez from New Jersey has entered a plea of not guilty to a recent indictment accusing him of acting as an unregistered foreign agent for the Egyptian government. This indictment follows accusations from federal prosecutors on October 12, stating that Menendez had been involved in actions on behalf of Egyptian military and intelligence officials from 2018 to 2022. The plea was made in front of U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein in Manhattan. Previously on October 12, Menendez had commented on the accusations, asserting that adding new charges doesn't make the allegations true.In a prior related case, both Senator Menendez and his wife, Nadine Menendez, were charged with accepting substantial amounts of money and gold bars from three businessmen based in New Jersey. The accusation was that in exchange, Menendez used his influence to aid the Egyptian government and obstruct law enforcement investigations into these businessmen. All defendants, including the Menendez couple, pleaded not guilty to those charges on September 27.On October 18, Nadine Menendez and one of the implicated businessmen, Wael Hana, also pleaded not guilty to the foreign agent charge. The prosecution alleges that Hana facilitated meetings between Senator Menendez and Egyptian officials, who then urged Menendez to approve military aid. As a part of the arrangement, Hana allegedly placed Nadine Menendez on the payroll of a company under his control. The indictment further claims that both Hana and Nadine Menendez transmitted requests and directives from Egyptian officials to Senator Menendez. Despite these serious allegations and charges, Senator Menendez has not heeded calls from fellow Democrats for his resignation.US Senator Menendez pleads not guilty to foreign agent charge | ReutersA federal judge has halted Colorado's attempt to exclude a Christian private school from its taxpayer-funded universal preschool program due to the school's religious-based stance on LGBTQ issues. The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico, who issued a preliminary injunction against the state's move to bar Darren Patterson Christian Academy from the program or penalize it for its religious policies. The school's policies require employees to adhere to its faith and students to use bathrooms and pronouns aligning with their biological sex, which clashed with Colorado's non-discrimination requirements.The conflict arose from the Colorado Department of Early Childhood's non-discrimination prerequisites, which prevent discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity among other statuses. These prerequisites were tied to a new universal preschool program approved by voters in 2020. Despite being initially approved to participate in this program, Darren Patterson Christian Academy sought an exemption from the non-discrimination requirements which was denied by the department, citing state law mandates.Judge Domenico, however, acknowledged the school's credible fear of enforcement of these requirements, especially in hiring teachers, as the school has a policy of hiring only born-again Christians observing sex within the traditional marriage framework. The judge also noted that mandating the use of preferred pronouns could likely infringe on the school's free speech rights.The verdict drew support from the school's representation, the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, emphasizing that religious schools shouldn't be forced to abandon their beliefs. This case reflects a wider contention as other religious organizations, including the Archdiocese of Denver, have raised objections against Colorado's non-discrimination mandates, with similar legal challenges pending.The ruling carries a broader implication, as it references a U.S. Supreme Court decision from June in a related Colorado case, which sided with a wedding website designer refusing services for same-sex weddings based on religious beliefs. The unfolding legal scenario in Colorado could potentially impact the balance between state non-discrimination laws and religious freedom, indicating a continuing legal discourse on these intersecting rights.Colorado can't bar Christian school from preschool program over LGBTQ stance, judge says | ReutersPresident Joe Biden's efforts to diversify the federal judiciary are clearly showcased in the US trial court in Seattle, where he selected all seven active judges in the Western District of Washington. These selections are significant for their diversity as all seven judges are either women, people of color, or both, marking a noticeable shift for a court that previously had no women of color. This court scenario offers a lens into a potential future where courts remain understaffed due to nomination battles, only to be filled when a president of the same party as the home state senators comes to power.These developments are consequential for states with two Republican senators, where judicial vacancies are accumulating. Such a scenario could lead to courts dominated by Republican-appointed judges if a Republican wins the 2024 presidential election. The Western District of Washington court, known for high-profile litigation, experienced a severe staffing shortage exacerbated by departures at the end of the Obama era, which remained unaddressed during Trump's term as he prioritized states with Republican home-state senators.Biden's selections are not only diverse demographically but also professionally, bringing a variety of legal expertise to the bench, a departure from the usual appointments of former prosecutors and corporate lawyers. The judges include individuals with backgrounds in immigration law, tribal court, labor law, and civil rights cases. They also represent some of the youngest federal judges, significantly lowering the average age of judges on the bench.The Western District stands out as the largest court in the country where a single president appointed all active judges, showcasing a potential future trend. Other courts like the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of California have also seen a significant number of appointments under Biden, following staffing shortages during the Trump administration. This trend may continue, especially in red states, as the 2024 election approaches, presenting opportunities for a Republican president to reshape courts in favor of their ideological leanings.Amidst these changes, the influx of new judges brings fresh perspectives to the courts, with senior judges playing a crucial role in mentoring and aiding the transition for new appointees. The camaraderie among new judges and the guidance from senior judges contribute to a supportive environment, aiding the new judges in navigating their roles effectively.All-Biden Court Shows Partisan Shift in How Judges Get ConfirmedRadiology provider Akumin Inc. intends to file for bankruptcy and transition into a private entity, with Stonepeak Partners taking over its operations. This decision comes as part of a deal where Akumin will exchange $470 million of its debt, held by Stonepeak, for equity. Additionally, Stonepeak Partners has committed to injecting $130 million of fresh capital into the business. The agreement also stipulates that current shareholders will share a $25 million cash pool. As of the last report, Akumin, which offers radiology and oncology services to approximately 1,000 healthcare facilities in the US, has a market capitalization of about $13 million and holds over $1.3 billion in debt. This restructuring plan is pending approval from the bankruptcy court.Radiology Provider Akumin to Go Bankrupt, Give Keys to CreditorThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) faces criticism from banks over its recent open banking proposal, which aims to enable the free sharing of customer financial data while enhancing security. Released on October 19, the proposal encourages banks and credit unions to facilitate customers in sharing their financial information with third-party fintech apps via data aggregators. However, traditional financial institutions fear this might not adequately address data security or liability concerns, and they might challenge it in court if they find the rule lacking in these areas.One primary concern of the banks and credit unions is the potential liability they might face if a data aggregator or fintech app suffers a data breach. They are also worried about the misuse of customer data by fintechs, which could infringe on privacy rights. Although the CFPB proposes to extend existing data security laws to fintechs, modify how customer data is shared, and limit the potential uses of such data, financial institutions believe these measures might not be sufficient to allay their concerns.The proposal also aims to phase out "screen scraping," a practice deemed insecure as it requires users to share their banking credentials with third-party services, which increases the risk of data exposure. The CFPB plans to replace this with the use of application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow consumers to control the financial data they share with third parties, intending to eliminate screen scraping within four years.The industry is already transitioning away from screen scraping, with the CFPB estimating that half of the third-party data access now occurs through APIs. This shift reflects a significant change from just two years ago when most data access was via screen scraping.The proposal also addresses targeted advertising by third parties, an area the CFPB has actively pursued, by setting guardrails on the use of shared data. It also states that data aggregators collecting customer data for credit decisions or other financial activities would be considered credit reporting companies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, bringing them under direct CFPB supervision for data security requirements compliance.However, banks and credit unions desire a stronger commitment to federal supervision concerning data security, privacy, and consumer protection. They also express concerns about liability for data breaches and potential customer losses, fearing that the liability standards set by Regulation E of the 1978 Electronic Fund Transfer Act might not adequately cover the complexities of open banking, potentially leaving banks liable if fintech companies lack the means to cover customer losses.Banks Say CFPB Needs to Beef Up Security in Open Banking Plan Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week On the Ballot: An analysis of margin of victories and a look at President Biden's judicial nominations. Available weekly on Thursday afternoons, stream "On the Ballot" on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have questions, comments, or love for BP, feel free to reach out at ontheballot@ballotpedia.org or on Twitter @Ballotpedia. Sample Ballot Tool: https://ballotpedia.org/Sample_Ballot_Lookup Margin of Victory Analysis: https://ballotpedia.org/Margin_of_victory_analysis_for_the_2020_state_legislative_elections Biden's Federal Judicial Nominations: https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_judges_nominated_by_Joe_Biden Hall Pass Newsletter: https://ballotpedia.org/Hall_Pass_-_August_10,_2022 Additional Newsletters: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Email_Updates

In the unprecedented move against the Supreme Court, Mike Davis, former Chief Counsel for Judicial Nominations in the United States Senate, Clerk for Justice Gorsuch, and Founder & CEO of the Article III Project joined the show to explain just how huge this breach of protocol is. Who could have leaked the opinion? How detrimental is this move? What will the ramifications be? Next, Charlie goes even more in-depth into Nina Jankowicz, the singing "disinformation" specialist, Alejandro Mayorkas her incomprehensibly terrible boss, and the ironic cry for "free-thought" from the intolerant Leftist Mob. As the Ministry of Truth gets off the ground, the Regime has to get their narrative back on track—Charlie exposes exactly how, explains why they have to in order to stay in power, and what we can all do to stop it. Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/support See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hubwonk host Joe Selvaggi talks with constitutional scholar Ilya Shapiro about Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination hearings and what her background and responses reveal about her views on the Constitution, the role of the Supreme Court, and her likely judicial positions relative to her fellow justices. Guest: Ilya Shapiro is the Executive Director and lecturer […]

Hubwonk host Joe Selvaggi talks with constitutional scholar Ilya Shapiro about Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination hearings and what her background and responses reveal about her views on the Constitution, the role of the Supreme Court, and her likely judicial positions relative to her fellow justices. Guest: Ilya Shapiro is the Executive Director and lecturer […]

In this episode, our editors Dan Lipkowitz and Michael Beckwith sat down with Professor John P. Collins, Jr. to discuss the legal and political features of nominating and confirming federal judges. In particular, their discussion analyzed the nomination and confirmation strategies recently used by the Biden administration in comparison with its predecessors. The conversation concluded with a discussion of Supreme Court vacancies and how the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court justice differs from other federal judges. Professor Collins is a Visiting Associate Professor at the George Washington University School of Law. His scholarship focuses on court administration, court reform, and the judiciary. His insights on the judicial nomination process have been featured in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, The New York Law Journal, The National Law Journal, and Law360 and his most recent article “Judging Biden” appears in the SMU Law Review Forum.

Madison Alder, Bloomberg Law Reporter, discusses the progress President Joe Biden has made in diversifying the federal bench and the challenges ahead in his second year in office. Harold Krent, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses the Chief Justice stressing the independence of the judiciary in his annual year-end report. June Grasso hosts. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Madison Alder, Bloomberg Law Reporter, discusses the progress President Joe Biden has made in diversifying the federal bench and the challenges ahead in his second year in office. Harold Krent, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses the Chief Justice stressing the independence of the judiciary in his annual year-end report. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For as much talk as there is about the presidency and whom we elect to Congress, there is rarely public conversation about who is sitting on our federal courts, specifically those that are not the U.S. Supreme Court. This absence of public discourse is at odds with the impact that the federal courts have on our lives. On this episode, Jeanne Hruska chats with Jill Dash, ACS Vice President for Strategic Engagement, about the federal courts, why they matter, and about how egregiously undiverse they are. The stats will shock you. They also discuss how people go about becoming federal judges and how listeners can engage in the process. ----------------- Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.org Today's Host: Jeanne Hruska, ACS Senior Advisor for Communications and Strategy Guest: Jill Dash, ACS Vice President of Strategic Engagement Link: ACS's Path to the Bench Project Link: ACS's Judicial Nominations tracker Link: Diversity of the Federal Bench Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube ----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2021.

On the latest episode of the Let's Think About That podcast, Ed and Lee talk about the breaking news that the border crisis is expanding as the Biden administration is sending planes to New York in the middle of the night to disgourge people who have been intercepted trying to come into the country.  Where is the border now?  It is no longer a problem just with border states.Also, in a story your probably have not heard anywhere else, it appears that significantly more federal judges appointed by Democrat presidents are taking senior status to allow Biden to make additional appointments.Email us at comments@LetsThinkPodcast.com and follow us on Twitter @LetsThinkPodca2

President Joe Biden continues to indicate, by his announcement of eight new federal judicial nominations on Wednesday, that he intends to fill the federal court system with as many new progressive judges as he can before the 2022 elections. As the Bible says, “for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he know the that he hath but a short time.” Biden and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York may not be the devil, but they certainly advance many of his causes.   Read Full Article Here!

President Joe Biden continues to indicate, by his announcement of eight new federal judicial nominations on Wednesday, that he intends to fill the federal court system with as many new progressive judges as he can before the 2022 elections. ... The post Biden's Affirmative-action Judicial Nominations Show Elections Have Consequences appeared first on The New American.

High drama at the high court. Grandstanding at Senate hearings. Distrust on all sides. Nominations made by presidents and ignored or voted down by the Senate or withdrawn due to scandal, calumny or nominee intellectual nullity or professional capacity issues. The personal character of nominees assailed. Questions asked of nominees; detailed answers politely refused. Cries of illegitimacy and calls for reform. All of this and more is on offer in Ilya Shapiro's 2020 book, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court (Gateway, 2020) Everyone who cares about the law and the history and the future of the United States should read this book. It offers something to every sort of reader. First, it is a serious work of scholarship that examines such questions as: Is the Court, as progressives claim, really in some sort of crisis and merely a tool of a cabal involving the rather unlikely combination of corporate America and the supposedly evil religious right? Or, as many on the right argue, has the legislative branch, for expediency's sake and in a cowardly and self-serving fashion, abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, thereby ceding far too much power to both the administrative state and the courts? Shapiro parses these questions with authority, weighing the pros and cons of the various reform measures of recent years with shrewdness, fairness and wit. Second, for general readers it is an entertaining yet substantive tour of the American political and legal landscape since the Founding Era and abounds in fascinating facts (e.g., when the first public Senate hearings on a Supreme Court nominee were held, the first time such a nominee testified in person before the Senate, the first time such hearings were televised). We learn about everything from the famous “Midnight Judges” to the fiascos of the nomination of Harriet Miers and those of Haysworth and Carswell. The book provides succinct profiles of such people that present them as distinct individuals and not as punchlines. The book is perfectly timed given that it was published just before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Senate hearings on the confirmation of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This is the book to turn to in coming years for solid analysis as the left pushes for “reform” of not only the Supreme Court but the entire federal judiciary—which Shapiro also discusses in depth. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

High drama at the high court. Grandstanding at Senate hearings. Distrust on all sides. Nominations made by presidents and ignored or voted down by the Senate or withdrawn due to scandal, calumny or nominee intellectual nullity or professional capacity issues. The personal character of nominees assailed. Questions asked of nominees; detailed answers politely refused. Cries of illegitimacy and calls for reform. All of this and more is on offer in Ilya Shapiro’s 2020 book, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court (Gateway, 2020) Everyone who cares about the law and the history and the future of the United States should read this book. It offers something to every sort of reader. First, it is a serious work of scholarship that examines such questions as: Is the Court, as progressives claim, really in some sort of crisis and merely a tool of a cabal involving the rather unlikely combination of corporate America and the supposedly evil religious right? Or, as many on the right argue, has the legislative branch, for expediency’s sake and in a cowardly and self-serving fashion, abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, thereby ceding far too much power to both the administrative state and the courts? Shapiro parses these questions with authority, weighing the pros and cons of the various reform measures of recent years with shrewdness, fairness and wit. Second, for general readers it is an entertaining yet substantive tour of the American political and legal landscape since the Founding Era and abounds in fascinating facts (e.g., when the first public Senate hearings on a Supreme Court nominee were held, the first time such a nominee testified in person before the Senate, the first time such hearings were televised). We learn about everything from the famous “Midnight Judges” to the fiascos of the nomination of Harriet Miers and those of Haysworth and Carswell. The book provides succinct profiles of such people that present them as distinct individuals and not as punchlines. The book is perfectly timed given that it was published just before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Senate hearings on the confirmation of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This is the book to turn to in coming years for solid analysis as the left pushes for “reform” of not only the Supreme Court but the entire federal judiciary—which Shapiro also discusses in depth. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

High drama at the high court. Grandstanding at Senate hearings. Distrust on all sides. Nominations made by presidents and ignored or voted down by the Senate or withdrawn due to scandal, calumny or nominee intellectual nullity or professional capacity issues. The personal character of nominees assailed. Questions asked of nominees; detailed answers politely refused. Cries of illegitimacy and calls for reform. All of this and more is on offer in Ilya Shapiro’s 2020 book, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court (Gateway, 2020) Everyone who cares about the law and the history and the future of the United States should read this book. It offers something to every sort of reader. First, it is a serious work of scholarship that examines such questions as: Is the Court, as progressives claim, really in some sort of crisis and merely a tool of a cabal involving the rather unlikely combination of corporate America and the supposedly evil religious right? Or, as many on the right argue, has the legislative branch, for expediency’s sake and in a cowardly and self-serving fashion, abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, thereby ceding far too much power to both the administrative state and the courts? Shapiro parses these questions with authority, weighing the pros and cons of the various reform measures of recent years with shrewdness, fairness and wit. Second, for general readers it is an entertaining yet substantive tour of the American political and legal landscape since the Founding Era and abounds in fascinating facts (e.g., when the first public Senate hearings on a Supreme Court nominee were held, the first time such a nominee testified in person before the Senate, the first time such hearings were televised). We learn about everything from the famous “Midnight Judges” to the fiascos of the nomination of Harriet Miers and those of Haysworth and Carswell. The book provides succinct profiles of such people that present them as distinct individuals and not as punchlines. The book is perfectly timed given that it was published just before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Senate hearings on the confirmation of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This is the book to turn to in coming years for solid analysis as the left pushes for “reform” of not only the Supreme Court but the entire federal judiciary—which Shapiro also discusses in depth. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

High drama at the high court. Grandstanding at Senate hearings. Distrust on all sides. Nominations made by presidents and ignored or voted down by the Senate or withdrawn due to scandal, calumny or nominee intellectual nullity or professional capacity issues. The personal character of nominees assailed. Questions asked of nominees; detailed answers politely refused. Cries of illegitimacy and calls for reform. All of this and more is on offer in Ilya Shapiro’s 2020 book, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court (Gateway, 2020) Everyone who cares about the law and the history and the future of the United States should read this book. It offers something to every sort of reader. First, it is a serious work of scholarship that examines such questions as: Is the Court, as progressives claim, really in some sort of crisis and merely a tool of a cabal involving the rather unlikely combination of corporate America and the supposedly evil religious right? Or, as many on the right argue, has the legislative branch, for expediency’s sake and in a cowardly and self-serving fashion, abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, thereby ceding far too much power to both the administrative state and the courts? Shapiro parses these questions with authority, weighing the pros and cons of the various reform measures of recent years with shrewdness, fairness and wit. Second, for general readers it is an entertaining yet substantive tour of the American political and legal landscape since the Founding Era and abounds in fascinating facts (e.g., when the first public Senate hearings on a Supreme Court nominee were held, the first time such a nominee testified in person before the Senate, the first time such hearings were televised). We learn about everything from the famous “Midnight Judges” to the fiascos of the nomination of Harriet Miers and those of Haysworth and Carswell. The book provides succinct profiles of such people that present them as distinct individuals and not as punchlines. The book is perfectly timed given that it was published just before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Senate hearings on the confirmation of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This is the book to turn to in coming years for solid analysis as the left pushes for “reform” of not only the Supreme Court but the entire federal judiciary—which Shapiro also discusses in depth. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

High drama at the high court. Grandstanding at Senate hearings. Distrust on all sides. Nominations made by presidents and ignored or voted down by the Senate or withdrawn due to scandal, calumny or nominee intellectual nullity or professional capacity issues. The personal character of nominees assailed. Questions asked of nominees; detailed answers politely refused. Cries of illegitimacy and calls for reform. All of this and more is on offer in Ilya Shapiro’s 2020 book, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court (Gateway, 2020) Everyone who cares about the law and the history and the future of the United States should read this book. It offers something to every sort of reader. First, it is a serious work of scholarship that examines such questions as: Is the Court, as progressives claim, really in some sort of crisis and merely a tool of a cabal involving the rather unlikely combination of corporate America and the supposedly evil religious right? Or, as many on the right argue, has the legislative branch, for expediency’s sake and in a cowardly and self-serving fashion, abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, thereby ceding far too much power to both the administrative state and the courts? Shapiro parses these questions with authority, weighing the pros and cons of the various reform measures of recent years with shrewdness, fairness and wit. Second, for general readers it is an entertaining yet substantive tour of the American political and legal landscape since the Founding Era and abounds in fascinating facts (e.g., when the first public Senate hearings on a Supreme Court nominee were held, the first time such a nominee testified in person before the Senate, the first time such hearings were televised). We learn about everything from the famous “Midnight Judges” to the fiascos of the nomination of Harriet Miers and those of Haysworth and Carswell. The book provides succinct profiles of such people that present them as distinct individuals and not as punchlines. The book is perfectly timed given that it was published just before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Senate hearings on the confirmation of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This is the book to turn to in coming years for solid analysis as the left pushes for “reform” of not only the Supreme Court but the entire federal judiciary—which Shapiro also discusses in depth. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

High drama at the high court. Grandstanding at Senate hearings. Distrust on all sides. Nominations made by presidents and ignored or voted down by the Senate or withdrawn due to scandal, calumny or nominee intellectual nullity or professional capacity issues. The personal character of nominees assailed. Questions asked of nominees; detailed answers politely refused. Cries of illegitimacy and calls for reform. All of this and more is on offer in Ilya Shapiro’s 2020 book, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court (Gateway, 2020) Everyone who cares about the law and the history and the future of the United States should read this book. It offers something to every sort of reader. First, it is a serious work of scholarship that examines such questions as: Is the Court, as progressives claim, really in some sort of crisis and merely a tool of a cabal involving the rather unlikely combination of corporate America and the supposedly evil religious right? Or, as many on the right argue, has the legislative branch, for expediency’s sake and in a cowardly and self-serving fashion, abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, thereby ceding far too much power to both the administrative state and the courts? Shapiro parses these questions with authority, weighing the pros and cons of the various reform measures of recent years with shrewdness, fairness and wit. Second, for general readers it is an entertaining yet substantive tour of the American political and legal landscape since the Founding Era and abounds in fascinating facts (e.g., when the first public Senate hearings on a Supreme Court nominee were held, the first time such a nominee testified in person before the Senate, the first time such hearings were televised). We learn about everything from the famous “Midnight Judges” to the fiascos of the nomination of Harriet Miers and those of Haysworth and Carswell. The book provides succinct profiles of such people that present them as distinct individuals and not as punchlines. The book is perfectly timed given that it was published just before the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Senate hearings on the confirmation of now Justice Amy Coney Barrett. This is the book to turn to in coming years for solid analysis as the left pushes for “reform” of not only the Supreme Court but the entire federal judiciary—which Shapiro also discusses in depth. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Judicial confirmations are a partisan affair, and that's hard to square with what we expect from judges. Ilya Shapiro elucidates the confirmation process in Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

@nigeriasbest and @phoenix_agenda were joined by @phoenix_agenda and @AbangMercy . Topics discussed: 1. An evaluation of Nigeria after 60 years of independence. 2. Human Rights abuses committed by the Special Anti-Robbery Squad of the police. 3. The decision to nominate Justice Ishaq Bello to the International Criminal Court

The brutal confirmation battles we saw over Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are symptoms of a larger problem with our third branch of government, a problem that began long before Kavanaugh, Merrick Garland, Clarence Thomas, or even Robert Bork: the courts’ own self-corruption, aiding and abetting the expansion of federal power. In Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court, Ilya Shapiro, director of the Cato Institute's Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, takes readers inside the unknown history of fiercely partisan judicial nominations and explores reform proposals that could return the Supreme Court to its proper constitutional role. Confirmation battles over justices will only become more toxic and unhinged as long as the Court continues to ratify the excesses of the other two branches of government and the parties that control them. Only when the Court begins to rebalance our constitutional order, curb administrative overreach, and return power to the states will the bitter partisan war to control the judiciary subside.Featuring: -- Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, The Cato Institute and Author, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court-- Joseph Tartakovsky, Author of The Lives of the Constitution: Ten Exceptional Minds that Shaped America's Supreme Law

The brutal confirmation battles we saw over Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are symptoms of a larger problem with our third branch of government, a problem that began long before Kavanaugh, Merrick Garland, Clarence Thomas, or even Robert Bork: the courts’ own self-corruption, aiding and abetting the expansion of federal power. In Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court, Ilya Shapiro, director of the Cato Institute's Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, takes readers inside the unknown history of fiercely partisan judicial nominations and explores reform proposals that could return the Supreme Court to its proper constitutional role. Confirmation battles over justices will only become more toxic and unhinged as long as the Court continues to ratify the excesses of the other two branches of government and the parties that control them. Only when the Court begins to rebalance our constitutional order, curb administrative overreach, and return power to the states will the bitter partisan war to control the judiciary subside.Featuring: Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, The Cato Institute and Author, Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest CourtJoseph Tartakovsky, Author of The Lives of the Constitution: Ten Exceptional Minds that Shaped America's Supreme Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

It's easy to agree that judicial independence is important – but who gets to be a part of the judiciary, who gets promoted to which court and who enters the highest ranks is a decision that has to be taken by someone, and a lot depends on who that someone is. Controlling judicial nominations is one of the key elements in all authoritarian takeover strategies which have been implemented in recent years in Poland, in Hungary and elsewhere. This is what we will discuss with our three distinguished guests today: FILIPPO DONATI is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Florence, a lay member of the Concilio Superiore della Magistratura of Italy and since June of this year the president of the European Network of Councils of the Judiciary. JOANNA HETNAROWICZ-SIKORA is a judge at the district court of Slupsk in northern Poland and a member of the board of the independent judges' association IUSTITIA. CHRISTIANE SCHMALTZ is a judge at the highest German civil and criminal court, the Bundesgerichtshof.  

Hubwonk Host Joe Selvaggi talks with Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro about his new book, "Supreme Disorder, Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court." The episode equips listeners with historical context to better understand the makeup of the Court, the nomination process, and the impact of a new justice on the Court.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We are deeply saddened by the loss of one of the greatest jurists of our lifetime. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a champion for a just and free society, as an advocate, an attorney and a Supreme Court Justice. She is irreplaceable, but someone will be nominated to take her seat on the Court. For over 4 decades, Alliance for Justice has been a leader on Supreme Court nominations, galvanizing a large and diverse coalition of progressive advocates. Now we are faced with the biggest fight yet. If you and your nonprofit care about the cause of equal justice, and the future of our country—now is the time. Not only can your nonprofit take a stand. It must. Read Alliance for Justice’s full statement on the passing of Justice Ginsburg. On this episode we're covering what your nonprofit can do to advocate on Supreme Court or other judicial nominations.    Our attorneys for this episode Tim Mooney Leslie Barnes Quyen Tu   Shownotes Work supporting or opposing a judicial nomination like the Supreme Court counts as lobbying. For 501(c)(3) public charities, it’s legal to lobby but tax law limits how much you can do. There are two ways for (c)(3)s to measure their lobbying limits. If you’re going to be active in this area of judicial nominations, you should make the 501(h) election, which we’ll cover in more detail in a future episode. The benefits of making the 501(h) election: Clear dollar based lobbying limits Clear definitions of lobbying. It’s retroactive to the beginning of your tax year Although there is a limit, the consequence of going over the limit is an excise tax and going over in one year doesn’t jeopardize your exempt tax status. Other 501(c)s can lobby an unlimited amount, but they can also tie their issue advocacy to electoral outcomes. For example, they can tie judicial nomination advocacy to their candidate endorsements.   Pre-nomination advocacy Trying to influence the President on specific nominees is lobbying Speaking to Senators before the nomination – unlikely to be lobbying. Talking about the process — for instance waiting until after the election to proceed with filling the vacancy — probably not lobbying activity before or after a nomination.   Post-nomination advocacy Direct lobbying - Senators and sometimes the President Grassroots lobbying – the general public, when there’s a call to action   How does the election factor in? For 501(c)(3)s that focus on the nomination itself, it is safe lobbying territory. 501(c)(3)s should not stray from the nomination process and tie their advocacy into whether the President or Senators should be reelected. That gets into partisan territory. Listen to the first episode of Rules of the Game more on advocating in an election season.   Best Practices Do’s Talk about the importance of the Supreme Court and the lower courts in protecting people’s rights. Do talk about RBG’s legacy and her decisions. Do talk about the 5-4 votes and how the balance could be tipped. Talk about any nominee’s record on the issues, with a particular focus on the potential impact on issues on which the organization has a record of working and speaking Talk about the nominee’s experience (or lack thereof). Tie a Senator’s public position on the issues to the nominee’s known record, or President’s statement on qualities he wants in nominees. Engage in grassroots mobilization. If your efforts include a call to action, for example, “Tell your Senator to Vote No,” track activities as grassroots lobbying. If advocacy concerns the process, that will generally not be counted as lobbying. For example, “No vote until after inauguration day,” or “A lame duck Senate should not be voting on a lifetime Supreme Court seat,” will likely not count as lobbying. Fund this work if you are a private foundation   Activities for 501(c)(3)s to avoid Don’t say a Senator should be defeated or re-elected because of their actions on this vacancy. Don’t praise or criticize statements of the people who are running against sitting Senators or the President on the nomination. Don’t share social media posts from candidate accounts—check before you tweet. Sitting Senators will have a campaign account and an account for their Senate role—check to ensure you are sharing from a non-campaign account. Be careful with c4 and PAC accounts—many will be posting content a c3 should not share.   Resources Bolder Advocacy’s TA hotline: 866-NP-LOBBY Email us at Advocacy@afj.org  Our website is bolderadvocacy.org   Resources on judicial nominations, including the process and the potential Supreme Court nominees 501(h) Factsheet Foundation Support for Public Charities that Influence Judicial and Executive Branch Confirmation Votes

Winfield Ong is an experienced federal litigator and the former criminal chief for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Indiana. In addition, he is a President Obama judicial nominee for the U.S. District Court, and he is a current white collar criminal defense attorney at Dentons Bingham Greenebaum. During this interview, the main topics of discussion were Winfield's journey through the judicial nomination process and Attorney General Bill Barr's decision to move to dismiss the criminal case against General Michael Flynn. Since then, unrest has swept the nation as a result of the killing of George Floyd. Though this interview took place several days beforehand and the topics seemed unrelated at first, many themes included are relevant and valuable to the situation we find ourselves in today: the rule of law, the power and discretion that lawyers have, and how that power should never be abused.

The Supreme Court is now part of the same toxic cloud that has enveloped the nation’s public discourse. Given the battles we saw over Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, and the largely party‐​line votes on most circuit‐​court nominees, too many people now think of the justices in partisan terms. That’s unfortunate, but it’s not a surprise when contrasting interpretive theories now largely track identification with parties that are more ideologically sorted than ever. Is there anything we can do to fix this dynamic? What does it mean for the future of constitutional protection for individual liberty? Ilya Shapiro will discuss the “New Supreme Court and the Future of Judicial Nominations.” See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We have a very special episode this week, as we go in depth into a report released in Washington this week. Today’s guest is Capital Research Center investigative researcher Hayden Ludwig who wrote “Big Money in Dark Shadow,” a deep dive into the dark money network surrounding the Liberal philanthropic consultancy Arabella Advisors. Subscribe to the audio version of the podcast on your platform of choice at: https://influencewatch.fireside.fm/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/capitalresea... Twitter: https://twitter.com/capitalresearch Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/capital.res... Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/capitalrese... YouTube: https://bit.ly/CRCYouTube Special Guest: Hayden Ludwig.

This week's show covers former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's decision to not run for governor, and the Republican's efforts to change the judicial nomination process.

The Trump administration is reshaping our judicial landscape. During his time in office, Trump has sent 157 judicial nominees to the Senate, which is bad news for reproductive and sexual health and rights. To help explain the sometimes daunting task of understanding the federal judiciary system under Trump, we're excited to have Kate Ryan from NARAL Pro-Choice America sit down with us! Support the show (https://www.reprosfightback.com/take-action#donate)

Hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh started today in the US Senate. The hearings should take up most of the week. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hopes to get Kavanaugh confirmed well before November's midterm elections. Where are we with the vote? US President Donald Trump told us he would nominate potential justices who would overturn Rowe v. Wade, and that's what he's doing. Trump went to the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation and got their lists of conservative justices likely to overturn Rowe and affirmative action because that's what his so-called evangelical base and ultra-right supporters want. That's how Kavanaugh's name got to Trump.Finally, if this is not a show hearing, why did Sen. Chuck Schumer reach an agreement last Tuesday with McConnell to fast-track the confirmations of 15 Trump-nominated judicial picks? Seven federal district court judges were confirmed that day.There's been a lot of discussion about Russian hacking and our election. I've been saying for a long time: it's not about the Kremlin, it's about Kobach; it's not about Russians, it's about the Republicans. Now, Greg Palast and Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. are challenging Kris Kobach and Interstate Crosscheck in court.For insight into this, we'll turn to Palast, who has been called the “most important investigative reporter of our time – up there with Woodward and Bernstein” by The Guardian. He and Rev. Jackson are on a mission to fight back and change election processes that are, as usual, victim to the contrivances of the far-right branch of the GOP and the co-partisans in Congress that vote with them. According to my last guest, Dr. Ajamu Baraka, the Women's March on the Pentagon, scheduled for October 20 and 21, “is an important part of ‘Anti-war Autumn'” activities. “We've got to put the so-called ‘New Wave' Democrats on notice that we're not going to allow them to get elected without clearly stating where they stand on US militarism.” As we look at this so-called progressive/Democratic Blue Wave that is supposed to be looming on the horizon, discussion of - and direct action on - war, peace and the military industrial complex is not at the forefront. What's going on?GUESTS:Leslie Proll — Civil rights lawyer. Advisor to NAACP on Judicial Nominations. Former NAACP LDF Policy Director & former Alabama Director of the US Department of Transportation.Greg Palast — Author and award-winning investigative reporter featured in The Guardian, Nation Magazine, Rolling Stone Magazine, BBC and other high profile media outlets.Dr. Ajamu Baraka — Internationally recognized activist, author and contributor the Black Agenda Report. He was also the Green Party's nominee for vice president of the United States in the 2016 election.

Townhall Review – August 4, 2018 Hugh Hewitt and Senator Chuck Grassley talk about the push to complete confirmation of judicial nominations. Hugh Hewitt talks with Congressman Jim Renacci about his re-election race. Michael Medved comments on 3-D printable guns. Dennis Prager asks comedian Owen Benjamin about liberal pressure on stand-up comedians. Larry Elder examines the Atlantic Magazine’s article, “What Putin Really Wants.” Michael Medved and Jay Richards, author of The Human Advantage – The Future of Work in an Age of Smart Machines, look to the future of Artificial Intelligence. Dennis Prager talks with Gregg Jarrett about his book, The Russia Hoax – The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump. Mike Gallagher and Dinesh D’Souza discuss his latest project, the film “Death of a Nation.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The list of cons over pros is mounting for President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh. What are they and what does this mean for the country moving forward? And is President Trump is trying to undermine NATO. If yes, why?On this episode of The Critical Hour with Dr. Wilmer Leon, the President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has expressed strong support for executive power, hostility to administrative agencies and support for gun rights and religious freedom. What does this mean for the country moving forward?In our last segment we go deep into Trump, Germany, Russia and NATO. Earlier today President Trump issued an ambitious call for vastly more defense spending at NATO, pushing for a doubling of their defense spending commitments hours after he delivered a blistering tirade against Germany and other allies. The demand during a closed-door meeting of NATO leaders would radically increase the amount of money channeled toward military purposes in the Western alliance — and even the United States is currently falling well short of Trump's new goal. Trump has also been demanding that countries not only meet their “commitment” of 2 percent of their GDP on defense spending, but that they increase it to 4 percent. That statement is misleading as well. It's not a 2% commitment, it is a guideline or a goal. We'll read between the lines and break it all down.GUESTS:Barbara Arnwine - The President and founder of Transformative Justice Coalition, is internationally renowned for contributions on critical justice issues including the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the 2006 reauthorization of provisions of the Voting Rights Act. She is the board vice-chair of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and serves on the board of directors of MomsRising and Independent Sector.Leslie Proll - Civil Rights Lawyer. Advisor to NAACP on Judicial Nominations. Former NAACP LDF Policy Director & Former Alabama Director of U.S. Department of Transportation.Gerald Horne - Holds the Moores Professorship of History and African American Studies. His research has addressed issues of racism in a variety of relations involving labor, politics, civil rights, international relations and war. Prolific writer, author of more than thirty books and one hundred scholarly articles and reviews.

On September 6, 2017, ACS hosted a call on the current state of federal judicial nominations. The federal judiciary is instrumental in protecting our rights on issues ranging from immigration to the environment. With Republican Senators having strategically held numerous seats open during the Obama Administration, the Trump White House is now poised to fill the nearly 18 percent of Article III judgeships that remain vacant. This is an Administration that has questioned the independence of the judiciary, attacked individual judges, and is aggressively pursuing an agenda to transform the composition of the courts to regress in many areas of the law. Moderator: Lena Zwarensteyn, Director of Strategic Engagement, American Constitution Society Featured Speakers: Senator Mazie Hirono, U.S. Senator from Hawaii Christopher Kang, Former Deputy Assistant and Deputy Counsel to President Barack Obama; ACS Board of Directors Ronald Klain, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Revolution; ACS Board of Advisors

Stephen Reinhardt, who was called the “liberal lion” of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, passed away on March 29th in Los Angeles. During his almost 40 years on the appeals court bench, Reinhardt wrote opinions that struck down the constitutionality of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and overturned Proposition 8, California’s initiative defining marriage as a male-female union. Reinhardt’s death means that there are now seven vacancies on the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. President Trump has an historic opportunity to remake the Ninth Circuit—and the entire federal judiciary. The vast majority of his judicial nominees thus far have been stellar. They will adhere to the rule of law and interpret the Constitution based on the words in it, not the ideas they want to be in it. The President should continue his good work in this arena. Doing so will remake federal jurisprudence for decades to come.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this week's Curmudgeon's Corner, Sam and Ivan talk about the Alabama Senate results, possible bias in the Mueller investigation, the Republican Tax Bill, Net Neutrality, Trump's judicial nominations, and the Patreon fee structure misfire. Plus Ivan makes fun of Sam's speech, and Sam's son Alex pipes up a few times. Show Details: Recorded 2017-12-15 Length this week - 1:37:02 (0:00:15-0:03:39) But First (0:05:21-0:30:41) Alabama (0:32:42-0:53:09) Mueller Bias (0:53:49-1:06:59) Tax Bill (1:08:46-1:18:13) Net Neutrality (1:18:51-1:24:01) Judicial Nominations (1:24:41-1:36:42) Patreon Misfire The Curmudgeon's Corner theme music is generously provided by Ray Lynch. Our intro is "The Oh of Pleasure" (Amazon MP3 link) Our outro is "Celestial Soda Pop" (Amazon MP3 link) Both are from the album "Deep Breakfast" (iTunes link) Please buy his music and support his GoFundMe.

To date, the Senate has confirmed 16 lifetime appointments to the federal bench. Along the way, the Senate Majority has compromised longstanding advice and consent norms, including respect for blue slips, stacking confirmation hearings, and lack of thorough vetting of the significant number of nominees. Please join us December 7, 2017, at 3:30pm ET for a discussion moderated by ACS President Caroline Fredrickson featuring Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) who serves as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Susan Davies, former Deputy Counsel to President Obama.

(Bloomberg) -- Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School, discusses Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell's plan to move forward with hearings for the federal judge nominations that are currently awaiting confirmation by the senate. He speaks with Bloomberg's June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's Bloomberg Law.

(Bloomberg) -- Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School, discusses Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell's plan to move forward with hearings for the federal judge nominations that are currently awaiting confirmation by the senate. He speaks with Bloomberg's June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's Bloomberg Law. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for squashing the "blue slip" system and expediting the confirmation of judicial appointments.  Even though they're pretty sure President Trump is joking about pulling network licenses in response to "fake news," they explain why a president should never be threatening the existence of a media outlet over their content.  And they cheer Ronan Farrow for his impressive reporting on the extent of Harvey Weinstein's sexual assaults and harassment, while also blasting NBC for its lame explanation for refusing to run the story months ago.

How Democrats Nuked Decency in Judicial Nominations

On this edition of Radio Free Acton, we're joined by Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and the editor of the Cato Supreme Court Journal, to discuss the politics surrounding judicial nominations in modern America, and the judicial legacy that presidents leave behind. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week, Mike and Jay open the show with a discussion of the summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland. They agree that President Trump's performance was bizarre and awful. Mike says this, combined with everything else we've seen regarding Trump and Russia, is enough to convince him that President Trump is either compromised by Russia or believes he may be compromised, which amounts to the same thing in real terms. After that, the Guys discuss new rules that would make major, industry-friendly changes to the Endangered Species Act. Mike says that he's all in favor of streamlining environmental approvals for industry, but not at the cost of endangering and destroying biodiversity. Jay has a more positive take on the proposed rules, believing they're a much-needed corrective to a policy that's unnecessarily hampered economic growth. Next is a look at the European Union's latest fine against Google for engaging in anticompetitive practices. Mike says that ensuring competitive markets  is a key role of government, and that the EU is doing a better job of it then the US is doing. Jay is also all for competitive markets, but thinks that the EU's position is overreach and that consumers have more options than EU regulators seems to believe. Finally, the Guys talk about the withdrawn nomination of Ryan Bounds to serve on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Mike finds it disappointing that Bounds even got to this point, as both of his home-state senators returned negative ‘Blue Slips' which traditionally meant that the nomination would be quashed. He argues that the Blue Slip tradition is yet another casualty of our hyper-partisan environment. Jay is less sad to see the Blue Slip go, arguing that it's no longer serving its intended purpose, but he agrees with Mike that making judicial nominations filibuster-proof has been a step in the wrong direction. *What Mike and Jay are Reading * Why I'm No Longer a Russiagate Skeptic ( http://bit.ly/2JI7oee ) *Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible*. If you're interested in supporting the show, go to politicsguys.com/support ( http://www.politicsguys.com/support ). Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-politics-guys/donations Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy