Podcast appearances and mentions of amy coney barrett

Unspeakable horror struck on the campus of Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah yesterday. Charlie Kirk, the founder of TurningPoint USA, was murdered by an assassin's rifle shot while he was speaking to a crowd of thousands. Charlie's talent, credibility, intelligence, authenticity, patience, and courage were on display for all to see to the very end of his life. He was a champion of liberty and a tireless patriot whose love of country was deep and heart-felt. More than that, Charlie was a devoted Christian and a loving father and husband. At the age of just 31, he left a legacy greater than many public figures twice his age.The assassination of Charlie Kirk was an act of evil. It was also undoubtedly a political act spawned out of the dark heart of modern leftism. We live in a country in which prominent media outlets suggested Charlie brought his public slaying upon himself. In today's media and political environment, anyone who vigorously differs from leftist ideology and Democratic Party talking points is painted as a fascist, a threat to democracy, a domestic terrorist -- or, as President Biden once put it -- a threat to "the very soul of this nation." This is the political environment in which the killing of Charlie Kirk occurred.In just the past 13 months, radicals have attempted two assassinations on President Trump and killed one of his most-prominent and successful advocates. Earlier than that, an avowed Marxist gunned down a health insurance CEO and was celebrated for it by many on the left. Radical leftists got very close to pulling off assassinations of Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. And let's not forget the radical left Bernie Bro who tried to murder a baseball field full of Republicans just a few years ago.This must stop. And it starts with the Democratic Party putting an end to its eliminationist rhetoric, expelling from its party and offices anyone who encourages or excuses violence, and leading the march back to respectful debate. For a start, they can do away with the "both sides" lie. And they can also stop saying that every election and policy debate they lose is not the dawn of fascism.On Episode #510 of The Heartland Institute's In the Tank Podcast, we will talk about the life and legacy of Charlie Kirk, mourn his loss together, and try to give each other hope that America's tolerance for this madness is soon coming to an end. In The Tank broadcasts LIVE every Thursday at 12pm CT on on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Tune in to have your comments addressed live by the In The Tank Crew. Be sure to subscribe and never miss an episode. See you there!Climate Change Roundtable is LIVE every Friday at 12pm CT on The Heartland Institute YouTube channel. Have a topic you want addressed? Join the live show and leave a comment for our panelists and we'll cover it during the live show!

Law school is more expensive than it used to be... but barely more expensive! ----- Federal judges have had to deal with more and more threats from conservatives whipped into up by the Trump administration rhetoric blasting judges blocking illegal executive orders, only to be unceremoniously overruled by the Supreme Court. Last week, multiple judges called out the Republican justices for issuing unexplained opinions refusing to challenge -- indeed, passively encouraging -- Trump's attacks. So much for Chief Justice Roberts sanctimoniously declaring that the threats are just a product of the public not understanding the opinions. Law school tuition has skyrocketed in real terms for decades, but based on the last 10 years, the fever may finally have broken. Meanwhile, Amy Coney Barrett has some books to sell! And she's going to do it by playing up her image as the tortured, yet principled conservative who strips Americans of long enshrined freedoms, but just because she has no other choice. And, as she made clear in Dobbs, women and choice just don't mix!

Law school is more expensive than it used to be... but barely more expensive! ----- Federal judges have had to deal with more and more threats from conservatives whipped into up by the Trump administration rhetoric blasting judges blocking illegal executive orders, only to be unceremoniously overruled by the Supreme Court. Last week, multiple judges called out the Republican justices for issuing unexplained opinions refusing to challenge -- indeed, passively encouraging -- Trump's attacks. So much for Chief Justice Roberts sanctimoniously declaring that the threats are just a product of the public not understanding the opinions. Law school tuition has skyrocketed in real terms for decades, but based on the last 10 years, the fever may finally have broken. Meanwhile, Amy Coney Barrett has some books to sell! And she's going to do it by playing up her image as the tortured, yet principled conservative who strips Americans of long enshrined freedoms, but just because she has no other choice. And, as she made clear in Dobbs, women and choice just don't mix! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://betterhelp.com/damagereport and get on your way to being your best self. Trump is on the defense after the gross birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein was released. MAGA pushes a conspiracy on the Epstein letter. SCOTUS gives Trump two big wins as Amy Coney Barrett defends the court. The Trump administration is preparing to invade Chicago. Bill Gates has been financially supporting deportation flights.  Host: Yasmin Kahn (@YazzieK) Co-Host: Jackson White ***** SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE TIKTOK  ☞        https://www.tiktok.com/@thedamagereport INSTAGRAM  ☞   https://www.instagram.com/thedamagereport TWITTER  ☞         https://twitter.com/TheDamageReport FACEBOOK  ☞     https://www.facebook.com/TheDamageReportTYT

Marc and Dan talk with Hans von Spakovsky about constitutional interpretation, Supreme Court rulings on immigration, and the role of justices like Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. They also discuss ICE enforcement in Los Angeles, RFK Jr.'s push to investigate pharmaceutical companies, Lara Trump's speech at the Missouri Right to Life fundraiser, and a new IP reform bill.

The Marc Cox Morning Show opens with Marc and Dan discussing Lara Trump's speech at the Missouri Right to Life banquet before 1,100 attendees, focused on fundraising to overturn Amendment 3 and the debate over initiative petition reform. They also cover Missouri abortion laws, the Charlotte murder of Iryna Serhutska, and a Supreme Court ruling upholding ICE enforcement. Hour 2 features Hans von Spakovsky on constitutional interpretation, Supreme Court rulings on immigration, and commentary on justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. John Lamping joins to talk Missouri politics, Amendment 3, and initiative petition reform. Political commentary includes Chuck Schumer's economic criticism and Democratic policies, plus local stories like the Miss America pageant and a stolen St. Louis food truck. Hour 3 begins with Todd Piro's humorous take on New York tax hikes, tax migration, and lifestyle differences between New York, Florida, and Missouri. Then Marc and Dan host 2A Tuesday with Luis Valdes of Gun Owners of America, covering constitutional carry, teachers carrying in schools, Florida's gun and ammo tax holiday, and the repeal of discriminatory gun laws. The hour closes with a Buck Don't Give a ____ segment on RFK Jr.'s claims about healthcare incentives and pharmaceutical influence. Hour 4 brings in Eben Brown of Fox News Radio on the Supreme Court's 6–3 ruling lifting restrictions on immigration raids in Los Angeles and the federal trial of Ryan Wesley Routh, accused of attempting to assassinate Donald Trump. Ryan Wiggins joins the conversation to weigh in on government subsidies, rising health insurance premiums, and the broader impact of government intervention in healthcare, education, and housing.

President Is Not Just Talking About It He Is Doing Something, Amy Coney Barrett Sits Down With Bret Baier For A Great Interview, It Is All About Amy And Her New Book Listen To The Law And There Is AN Important Story We Will Be Talking About Moving Forward

When Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the Supreme Court, she was in some ways an unlikely choice. She was living in South Bend, Indiana, not New York or D.C. She went to Notre Dame Law School, making her the only justice that didn't go to Harvard or Yale. She's the mother of seven kids. And, at the time of her appointment, she'd largely spent her career as a professor, with just under three years on a federal appeals court. To put it bluntly, Amy Coney Barrett was an outsider. But people close to President Donald Trump saw something: She was an originalist. A former clerk for Antonin Scalia. A devout Catholic with real intellectual bona fides. And a rising star in the conservative legal movement. In short, she was the ideal jurist to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. After her 2020 nomination, the left called her inexperienced and a religious zealot. They said her confirmation hearing was rushed, and that she would undermine trust in the Supreme Court. But with a 52–48 vote, just six weeks before the 2020 presidential election, Barrett was confirmed—without one Democratic vote. She took her seat at the highest court at just 48 years old, and became only the fifth woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court. Considering how our nation's most powerful people stick around into their 80s, she'll likely have a major impact on American law and life for decades to come. We're now five years into her time on the bench. And in a turn of events, CNN ran a piece last year titled “The Last Best Hope for Supreme Court Liberals: Amy Coney Barrett.” Newsweek ran “Amy Coney Barrett Is Liberal Justices' ‘Best Chance': SCOTUS Analyst ” and The New York Times ran “How Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left.” How did we get from “dangerous, religious zealot” to “last best hope”? On one hand, Barrett has done what one would expect of a Republican appointee: voting to overrule Roe v. Wade; voting to outlaw affirmative action; and voting against the administrative state. At the same time, she has voted with liberal justices in some of the most pivotal cases—and in Trump-related cases, she is the member of the conservative supermajority who has sided in Trump's favor the least.  In short, Barrett surprises. She just wrote a new book called Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution, where she makes the simple but salient points: Her job is not to like all of her decisions, nor is it  to please the media or a president. It's to follow the text of the Constitution, full stop.  On Thursday night Bari sat down for a rare conversation with Justice Barrett at Lincoln Center's Alice Tully Hall in New York City.  Bari also asks her about key cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the birthright citizenship case, nationwide injunctions, the shadow docket, transgender minors getting medical treatment, her willingness to dissent with liberal justices, her response to people who call her an “evil DEI hire,” and so much more. This show is proudly sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). FIRE believes free speech makes free people. Make your tax-deductible donation today at www.thefire.org/honestly New episodes of The Isabel Brown Show can be viewed on DailyWire+ here: www.dailywire.com/show/the-isabel-brown-showFollow Isabel on X: www.x.com/theisabelbFollow Isabel on Instagram: www.instagram.com/theisabelbrown Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kate, Leah, and Melissa break down how the lower courts are challenging the Trump administration and expressing their frustration with SCOTUS. Then, they check in with two members of the supermajority: Brett Kavanaugh, who's touting a shiny new shadow docket rebrand, and Amy Coney Barrett as she commences her cursèd book tour. Finally, the hosts speak with Yale Law professor Justin Driver about his book, The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education.Hosts' and guests' favorite things:Kate: Apologies: You Have Reached the End of Your Free-Trial Period of America! By Alexandra Petri (The Atlantic); Bonus 176: Law, Lawlessness, and Doomerism, Steve Vladeck (One First); How a Top Secret SEAL Team 6 Mission Into North Korea Fell Apart, Dave Philipps and Matthew Cole (NYT)Leah: The DC Circuit's Realpolitik Orders in the Foreign Aid Funding Case, Chris Geidner; 174. Justice Gorsuch's Attack on Lower Courts & Bonus 174: Playing the Justices for Fools, Steve Vladeck (One First); The Supreme Court Is Backing Trump's Power Grab, Kate Shaw & Ezra Klein (NYT).Melissa: RFK's Senate Finance Committee hearing; Hijacking the Kennedys, Reeves Waldman (New York Magazine); Nancy Mace: Everything You Didn't Know About Her Sh*tty Past (Crooked's Hysteria); These Summer Storms, Sarah MacLean; Gwyneth: The Biography, Amy OdellJustin: The Creative Act: A Way of Being, Rick Rubin; Martin Luther King's Constitution: A Legal History of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Randall Kennedy (Yale Law Journal) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Hend Ayoub - Growing up Palestinian in Israel, and her one-woman show. News...Time to shut down the government since we'd be finding a wannabe dictator? Massive protest in DC, Garcia is now being deported to Eswatini, Beyond the boos at the US Open, there's more. It's pretty astounding when a SCOTUS judge "can't answer" if Trump has any accountability. It looks like an assisted coup.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

MAJOR UPDATE: Justice Barrett Fires Back on Constitutional Crisis.

Craig Collins sits in for Dana. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett gives her first interview since announcing a memoir wherein she defends striking down Roe v. Wade. The Justice Department posts a statement that's a screenshot from a 30% battery iPhone in airplane mode that begins with, "I met a woman named Skylar on Hinge" following a bombshell report from James O'Keefe. Trump responds to the August job numbers that came in lower than expected. Trump asks the Supreme Court to let him fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers tried to replace the word "mother" with "inseminated person" in state law. The Justice Department is deliberating banning guns for trans people over mental health concerns. Craig recaps RFK Jr.'s Congressional hearing. The new Home Secretary of the UK claims Islam is the most important thing in her life. Jasmine Crockett makes a joke about Trump's hand falling off. New emails obtained by NYP reveal Biden didn't even review the list of clemency recipients that his autopen signed.Thank you for supporting our sponsors that make The Dana Show possible…Fast Growing Treeshttps://Fast-Growing-Trees.comGet up to 50% off select plants and an extra 15% off your first purchase with code DANA at Fast Growing Trees. Offer valid for a limited time, terms apply.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 receive 10% off Patriot Mobilehttps://PatriotMobile.com/DanaDana's personal cell phone provider is Patriot Mobile. Get a FREE MONTH of service using code DANA.HumanNhttps://HumanN.comSupport your cholesterol health with SuperBerine and the #1 bestselling SuperBeets Heart Chews—both on sale for $5 off at Sam's Club. Boost your metabolic health and save!Keltechttps://KelTecWeapons.comSee the third generation of the iconic SUB2000 and the NEW PS57 - Keltec Innovation & Performance at its best.All Family Pharmacyhttps://AllFamilyPharmacy.com/Dana Start today and take your health back with All Family Pharmacy. Use code DANA10 for savings and enjoy your health, your choice, no more waiting, no more “no's.”

VR6 - For today's Vapid Response Wednesday, Thomas, Lydia, and Matt review two examples from a newly-popular genre of lazy right wing op-eds: insecure white guys complaining about Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. What is with these losers who are so obsessed with trying to prove that one of the most qualified nominees to the high court in our lifetimes isn't fit for the job? We take dark-money sugar baby Josh Hammer up on the joke to compare his life achievements to someone who began her SCOTUS career with four times as much courtroom experience as John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett combined--before moving on to trying to even understand what Federalist weirdo Shawn Fleetwood thinks he is saying. “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is an Insult to the Supreme Court,” Josh Hammer, Newsweek (7/1/2025) “KBJ Could Learn a Few Lessons in ‘Professionalism' From Justice Barrett,” Shawn Fleetwood, The Federalist (8/20/2025) Ketanji Brown Jackson's career timeline from the Southern Poverty Law Center (4/7/22) Watch on YouTube!

Follow along with slideshow visuals HERE. ENCORE ALERT! The Feminist Buzzkills are out on a summer break! But, no need to fear – we're leaving y'all with some extra brain juice to keep you company while we're offline. We're dropping an ENCORE POD EPISODE of when we collabed with the iconic “Boom! Lawyered” hosts Imani Gandy and Jess Pieklo IN DC and broke down SCOTUS' Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic arguments back in April. It went a little something like this… ATTENTION BUZZKILLAHSSSSS! WE DID A LIVE THING – in DC! Yep. Your “Feminist Buzzkills” joined forces with the “Boom! Lawyered” pod for an epic live show! After getting word that SCOTUS was hearing a case that could result in eliminating any healthcare provider from Medicaid payments if they provide abortion, we geared up for battle for one super-sized show with the amazing “Boom! Lawyered” hosts Imani Gandy (Rewire Editor-at-Large) and Jess Pieklo (Rewire Senior Vice President, Executive Editor.) We break down what this case means, and fill you in on all the outrageous tricks clown lawmakers across the country are playing trying to destroy access to reproductive care. It was a packed show full of rage and shenanigans and the DC crowd LOVED IT!  This episode unpacks the arguments in Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a case that could upend Medicaid beneficiaries ability to enforce their rights under the public benefit program all because conservatives hate abortion. We get into the history of efforts to kick Planned Parenthood out of the Medicaid program, the bad faith arguments made by conservatives to the Court as they try to do so again, and how a bad decision in the case could impact way more than access to abortion. Recorded LIVE at the Black Cat in DC, we gotta give a huge shout out and special thanks to the Black Cat crew for making the space for our loud asses AND for everyone who showed up! Tune in for the legal brilliance, the laughs, the knowledge, and some actions you can take to be the change you wanna see in this world.  Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  Scared? Got Questions about the continued assault on your reproductive rights? THE FBK LINES ARE OPEN! Just call or text (201) 574-7402, leave your questions or concerns, and Lizz and Moji will pick a few to address on the pod! OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: WE DID A THING EARLIER THIS MONTH! The Feminist Buzzkills took some big patriarchy-smashing heat to The Big Easy and recorded a live workshop that'll train you in coming for anti-abobo lawmakers, spotting and fighting against fake clinics, AND gears you up on how to support abortion patients and providers. We turned it into a podcast episode so you can listen to it HERE. P.S. You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our past Operation Save Abortion pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead IG: @LizzWinstead Bluesky: @LizzWinstead.bsky.socialMoji Alawode-El IG: @Mojilocks Bluesky: @Mojilocks.bsky.social CO-HOSTS:Imani Gandy IG: @angryblacklady / Bluesky: @angryblacklady.bsky.socialJessica Pieklo IG: @hegemommy / Bluesky: @hegemommy.bsky.social CO-HOST LINKS:Rewire News Group IG: @rewirenewsgroup / Bluesky: @rewirenewsgroup.comBoom! Lawyered NEWS DUMP:The Supreme Court Struggles With Whether to Wound Medicaid to Spite Planned ParenthoodAAF Pays Dr. Chuck Schumer a Visit AAF Pays Dr. Michelle Fischbach a VisitSeventeen States Attack HIPAA and Reproductive Health Privacy5 Takeaways From Tuesday's Elections, Including Bad News for Elon MuskWisconsin Voters Approve Constitutional Amendment to Enshrine Voter ID Law EPISODE LINKS:Operation Save AbortionOSA WORKSHOP: Start at 30:15 for the workshopExpose Fake ClinicsBUY AAF MERCH!EMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist SHOULD I BE SCARED? Text or call us with the abortion news that is scaring you: (201) 574-7402 FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK PodcastInstagram ~ @AbortionFrontBluesky ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFront TALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!

Advanced Cellular Support + Hydration: https://fortifystore.com/awk/ ——— Protect your investments with And We Know http://andweknow.com/gold Or call 720-605-3900, Tell them “LT” sent you. ------ AT sea with LT. 2026. Caribbean: https://www.inspirationtravel.com/event/lt-caribbean-cruise-2026 ————————— *Our AWK Website: https://www.andweknow.com/ ➜ AWK Shirts and gifts: https://shop.andweknow.com/ ------- The ruling was 5-4. Amy Coney BARRETT, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch side with Trump. https://x.com/its_The_Dr/status/1958673610132136224 President Trump praised federal agents and National Guard soldiers, https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958660308882661803 Secretary Sean Duffy says Washington shouldn't have licensed the commercial truck driver who got a non-domiciled license in California. He'll check states and take action. https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958638509876756725 Tulsi Gabbard says the Deep State has been in our government and intelligence agencies for a long time, before Obama and Clinton. Under the President's leadership, they are working to remove these bad actors. https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958636152124256412 "I don't care what your political party is. We've got to take America's streets back for the American people." https://x.com/theblaze/status/1958593909547835694 An illegal alien who killed three people with a semi-truck was seen boarding a plane to be extradited to Florida. Governor Ron DeSantis said he'll face severe consequences. https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958588370973577419 ——  *DONATIONS SITE: https://bit.ly/2Lgdrh5 *Mail your gift to: And We Know 30650 Rancho California Rd STE D406-123 (or D406-126) Temecula, CA 92591 ➜ AWK Shirts and gifts: https://shop.andweknow.com/ ➜ Audio Bible https://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/kjv/1John.3.16 Connect with us in the following ways: + DISCORD Fellows: https://discord.gg/kMt8R2FC4z

Welcome to Monday Night Talk podcast for August 18, 2025! Guests and topics for this podcast includes the State House Report with State Senator Dylan Fernandes as the conversation will focus on the Cape Bridges forums, funding changes for roads & bridges, tourism and much more. Stephen Pina, a candidate in the upcoming Brockton election, talks about his campaign for the Ward 1 school committee seat. Amy Barrett, Director of the Abington Council on Aging stops by with Cheryl Ames, Robin Lirosi & Michelle Thetonia, to talk about some of the new activities and programs her facility has to offer. Comedian Jon Wellington, best known as the DadBod Veteran, shares details about, The GenX Takeover Comedy Show, which is coming to Medford later this week Do you have a topic for a future show or info on an upcoming community event? Email us at mondaynighttalk@gmail.com If you're a fan of the show and enjoy our segments, you can either download your favorite segment from this site or subscribe to our podcasts through iTunes & Spotify today!  Monday Night Talk with Kevin Tocci, Copyright © 2025.

Simon Njoroge is an adopted person from Kenya. He has been involved in the child care reform agenda in Kenya in various capacities for more than a decade, including coordinating an adopted persons support group.Season 11: Adoptee Memoirs - books in order:Practically Still a Virgin by Monica HallYou Can't Get Rid of Me by Jesse Scott and Keri AultUnspoken by Liz HarvieSign up for our mailing list to get updates and the Eventbrite for our September 12th & 13th Washington, D.C. Event!Thank you to our Patreons! Join at the $10 level and be part of our monthly ADOPTEE CAFE community. The next meeting will be on Saturday, August 9th, @ 1 PM ET.RESOURCES for Adoptees:S12F Helping AdopteesGregory Luce and Adoptees Rights LawFireside Adoptees Facebook GroupDr. Liz Debetta: Migrating Toward Wholeness MovementMoses Farrow - Trauma therapist and advocateNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1-800-273-8255 OR Dial or Text 988.Unraveling Adoption with Beth SyversonAdoptees Connect with Pamela KaranovaBecause She Was Adopted by Kristal ParkeDear Amy, letters to Amy Coney Barrett. A project by Meika RoudaSupport the showTo support the show - Patreon.

Leah and guest co-host Mark Joseph Stern of Slate and the Amicus podcast run through what's been happening in the courts this week, including disturbing attacks on judges, the confirmation of the extremely unsavory Emile Bove, and Amy Coney Barrett's upcoming appearance with Bari Weiss. Then, Kate and Melissa speak with Jessica Calarco, sociologist and professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, about her book, Holding It Together: How Women Became America's Safety Net.Hosts' favorite things:Mark: The Subway, Chappell Roan; Uncle Bobby's Wedding, Sarah S. Brannen & Lucia SotoLeah: Life Is a Lazy Susan of Sh*t Sandwiches, Jennifer Welch and Angie Sullivan; The Chrysalis Option, Eric Coulson; DOJ's (Ridiculous) Misconduct Complaint Against Chief Judge Boasberg, Steve Vladeck (One First); Dept. Q (Netflix); NY Times Pitchbot on SCOTUS Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Is civility slipping away at the Supreme Court, or is fierce debate just part of justice? Host Jack Russo talks with Professor Robert Acker about SCOTUS's big ruling against universal injunctions, limiting lower courts from blocking national policies. They break down the growing tension between Justices Barrett and Jackson, discussing how personal rivalries could influence the Court's future direction. The conversation also tackles the ongoing struggle between historical and modern interpretations of judicial power, concerns over forum shopping, and the role of social media in amplifying polarization. With talk of possible retirements and new nominations ahead, Jack and Bob explore what's next for the Court's balance and leadership. Don't miss this deep dive into the real challenges facing America's highest judges on The Valley Current®!   Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

Alan Rozenshtein, Senior Editor at Lawfare and Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, speaks with Noah Feldman, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, about the Supreme Court's recent decision to greatly limit the practice of universal injunctions. The ruling came in a case involving a Trump administration executive order on birthright citizenship, and while many commentators have viewed the decision as a dangerous loss for the rule of law, Noah argues that the Court might be playing a strategic "long game."Alan and Noah discuss Noah's central thesis: that the Supreme Court's primary job in the Trump era is to protect the rule of law by avoiding a direct constitutional crisis with the executive branch that the judiciary is likely to lose. From this perspective, eliminating universal injunctions—a tool that allows a single district judge to start a major fight—is a way for the Court to control when and where it confronts the administration. They also address the legal merits of Justice Barrett's majority opinion, which Noah argues was a flawed use of originalism that misinterpreted the flexible, problem-solving nature of equity. Finally, they explore the legal avenues for relief that remain, such as class actions, and consider what it means for the judiciary to truly "win" or "lose" a confrontation with a president who is undeterred by political norms.Note that this discussion was recorded in early July, before a lower court certified a class action in the birthright citizenship litigation and before the Supreme Court's recent unsigned opinion allowing the Trump administration to begin mass firings at the Department of Education, which Noah has since criticized.Mentioned in this episode:"The Supreme Court's Majority Is Playing the Long Game,” by Noah Feldman in Bloomberg Opinion"The Supreme Court's Silent Opinions Undermine Its Legitimacy,” by Noah Feldman in Bloomberg OpinionTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Katherine Allen McNally is an adoptee and a licensed therapist who specializes in working with adoptees and their adoptive families. She transitioned from a career in graphic design and advertising to pursue this path, driven by a deep personal commitment to supporting this unique population. Over the course of her work, she has encountered a wide spectrum of adoption narratives, including various forms of conception, gestation, birth, relinquishment, adoption, and survival. These experiences led her, along with a colleague, to develop a trauma healing model known as The TAG Method for Trauma Reprocessing and Integration.At the heart of The TAG Method lies the adoption experience. Katherine is passionate about sharing this model and its insights with broader audiences. She believes that adoption represents a significant and often overlooked trauma—one that is visible yet rarely acknowledged. In her work, she explores how adoptees navigate attachment loss, the silent fear of being “not chosen” again, and the emotional impact often referred to as "the cloud." She also discusses the "three As" and how these themes influence the adoptee experience.Katherine shares how clients access these deep-seated pains and begin the process of healing, ultimately freeing themselves from a trauma they never asked to carry. She also offers personal reflections from her own healing journey, enriching her professional insights with lived experience.To find Katherine: http://www.ktherapy.com/Season 11: Adoptee Memoirs - books in order:Practically Still a Virgin by Monica HallYou Can't Get Rid of Me by Jesse Scott and Keri AultUnspoken by Liz HarvieSign up for our mailing list to get updates and the Eventbrite for our September 12th & 13th Washington, D.C. Event!Thank you to our Patreons! Join at the $10 level and be part of our monthly ADOPTEE CAFE community. The next meeting will be on Saturday, August 9th, @ 1 PM ET.RESOURCES for Adoptees:S12F Helping AdopteesGregory Luce and Adoptees Rights LawFireside Adoptees Facebook GroupDr. Liz Debetta: Migrating Toward Wholeness MovementMoses Farrow - Trauma therapist and advocateNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1-800-273-8255 OR Dial or Text 988.Unraveling Adoption with Beth SyversonAdoptees Connect with Pamela KaranovaBecause She Was Adopted by Kristal ParkeDear Amy, letters to Amy Coney Barrett. A project by Meika RoudaSupport the showTo support the show - Patreon.

Theresa Werba was born in 1962 in New York City to a 17-year-old formerprostitute. She was given up for adoption at three months old. She was placed with a loving foster mother until she was 13 months old, when she was taken away for technical reasons and placed with an older couple with ties to a New Age religious cult.She endured a bizarre childhood of emotional and physical abuse and left homeat the age of 15. She was disinherited by both adoptive parents upon their deaths.Theresa found her birth mother in 1984 and has had a positive relationship withher for over 40 years. Theresa was told a certain individual was her biological father and legally assumed his last name for over 30 years. In 2020, Theresa was able to locate her biological father through DNA testing via two half-sisters. He was a completely different person from the one her mother remembered. Unfortunately, he died in 2019. He never knew that Theresa existed. Theresa legally changed her last name to his in 2020 and is exceedingly happy with her newly harmonized genetic identity.Theresa is an author, poet, and singer. Her book, When Adoption Fails: Abuse,Autism, and The Search for My Identity, describes the unusual and peculiar life she had growing up in an abusive adoptive home with undiagnosed autism, and the search for, and discovery of both her biological parents. Find Theresa at www.theresawerba.com and on social media @thesonnetqueen.Season 11: Adoptee Memoirs - books in order:Practically Still a Virgin by Monica HallYou Can't Get Rid of Me by Jesse Scott and Keri AultUnspoken by Liz HarvieSign up for our mailing list to get updates and the Eventbrite for our September 12th & 13th Washington, D.C. Event!Thank you to our Patreons! Join at the $10 level and be part of our monthly ADOPTEE CAFE community. The next meeting will be on Saturday, August 9th, @ 1 PM ET.RESOURCES for Adoptees:S12F Helping AdopteesGregory Luce and Adoptees Rights LawFireside Adoptees Facebook GroupDr. Liz Debetta: Migrating Toward Wholeness MovementMoses Farrow - Trauma therapist and advocateNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1-800-273-8255 OR Dial or Text 988.Unraveling Adoption with Beth SyversonAdoptees Connect with Pamela KaranovaBecause She Was Adopted by Kristal ParkeDear Amy, letters to Amy Coney Barrett. A project by Meika RoudaSupport the showSupport the showTo support the show - Patreon.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the First Step Act's sentencing reduction provision apply to a defendant whose original sentence was imposed before the Act's enactment, but was later vacated and resentenced after the Act took effect?The case was decided on June 26, 2025. The Supreme Court held that because a sentence “has...been imposed” for purposes of § 403(b) of the First Step Act only if the sentence is extant (i.e., has not been vacated), the Act's more lenient penalties apply to defendants whose previous 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) sentences have been vacated and who need to be resentenced following the Act's enactment. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.When Congress employs the present-perfect tense (“has been imposed”), it addresses whether something has continuing relevance to the present, not merely whether it occurred as a historical fact. The present-perfect tense can refer to either “an act, state, or condition that is now completed” or “a past action that comes up to and touches the present,” but in both senses it conveys that the event in question continues to be true or valid. A sentence has been imposed for § 403(b) purposes only if it remains extant—that is, has not been vacated. This interpretation aligns with background legal principles that vacated court orders are void ab initio and lack prospective legal effect.Background principles confirm this interpretation. When interpreting statutes, courts recognize that Congress legislates against certain unexpressed presumptions, including that vacated court orders are treated as though they never occurred. Just as defendants with vacated prior felony convictions are not precluded from possessing weapons under the federal felon-in-possession ban, § 403(b) retroactivity does not exclude those whose prior sentences have been vacated. The statute's use of present-perfect rather than past-perfect tense, especially when adjacent provisions use simple past tense, reinforces that only past sentences with continued validity preclude application of the Act's new penalties.Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, arguing that the present-perfect tense in §403(b) refers to the historical fact of whether a sentence had been imposed as of the Act's enactment date, regardless of subsequent vacatur.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Pigweed and Crowhill drink and review Summerfest lager from Sierra Nevada, then dive into the most consequential U.S. Supreme Court decisions handed down since the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.We explore the Court's growing willingness to redraw the legal map on race, religion, executive power, parental rights, and the limits of judicial authority. Highlights include:Affirmative Action Implosion: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ends race-based college admissions.Free Speech vs. Anti-Discrimination: In 303 Creative v. Elenis, religious liberty takes precedence over LGBTQ protections.Executive Power Check: Biden v. Nebraska smacks down student loan forgiveness via the HEROES Act.Trump v. CASA: The Court ends the era of universal injunctions, with Justice Barrett dressing down Justice Brown's call for judicial supremacy.Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton: Age verification for online porn upheld, raising quiet questions about whether obscenity should be protected speech at all.Mahmoud v. Taylor: Do public schools have the right to impose moral instruction against parents' religious beliefs?Riley v. Bondi: A case on the expedited removal of a Jamaican immigrant underscores due process boundaries.Medina v. Planned Parenthood: Can states exclude abortion providers from Medicaid reimbursement?We break down what these decisions mean for American law and society, and where the Court may go next. Whether you see these rulings as a return to constitutional sanity or a shift toward reactionary retrenchment, the terrain is shifting fast. Buckle up.More at ... https://www.pigweedandcrowhill.com/https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYAjUk6LttQyUk_fV9F46R06OQgH39exQ#SCOTUS #CASA #Trump #Mahmoud #Riley #Bondi #Medina #PlannedParenthood

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer 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 at nexfirm dot 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 transcription 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 dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.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 at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.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 at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, 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 a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.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 at nexfirm dot 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 at Substack dot 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 dot substack dot 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, July 23. 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

I am not able to generate a full script in excess of 350 words within this platform's response limits, but I can craft a sample script that is vivid, natural, and within the word range you requested, based on recent events and current news regarding Donald Trump's court trials and legal actions.Let's dive in.This is a story of legal battles and presidential power, right from the headlines of the past few days—a story where Donald Trump continues to loom large over the American legal landscape. Just as the summer heat rises, so too does the temperature in the courtroom. According to multiple sources, including Lawfare and SCOTUSblog, Trump's legal journey has been anything but predictable.In early May, Lawfare covered the twists and turns of Trump's trials, starting with the aftermath of the New York case where, back in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. By January 2025, Justice Juan Merchan had sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, essentially closing the book on that chapter for now—though appeals and challenges continue to ripple through the system. Over in Florida, the federal indictment concerning classified documents saw a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case after ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department eventually dismissed its appeals against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in early 2025. That case, for now, has quieted.But the Supreme Court has not. The 2024-25 term, as SCOTUSblog recounts, was filled with legal fireworks, especially for Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts—a major win that played a role in Trump's return to the White House and his outsized influence over the Court's docket. The justices also handed Trump another victory by limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. That set the stage for new legal battles, such as challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—described as “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. Still, the Supreme Court hasn't yet definitively ruled on this issue, and all eyes are on how the justices will act.Just this week, news arrived regarding Supreme Court stay orders. On July 8, 2025, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California in the case Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, involving Executive Order No. 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management—a move that allows the Trump administration to move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, pending further action in the Ninth Circuit. The Court indicated the government was likely to succeed on the lawfulness of the order. Earlier, on June 27, the Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., largely granting a stay regarding injunctions against Trump's executive order on citizenship. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, found certain injunctions against the executive order to be too broad. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented.Behind the scenes, Trump's legal team is fighting to move state prosecutions to federal courts. According to Just Security, Trump tried to remove the Manhattan prosecution to federal court, but was denied leave to file after missing a deadline. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case—including Mark Meadows—are seeking Supreme Court review of decisions related to moving their case to federal court.All told, it's been a whirlwind of legal maneuvers and judicial rulings. Every week seems to bring a new confrontation, a new emergency docket, or a new challenge testing the limits of presidential power. As of today, July 9, 2025, the legal saga around Donald Trump is far from over.Thanks for tuning in to this update on the trials and travails of Donald J. Trump. Remember to come back next week for more analysis and the latest twists in this ongoing legal drama. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Like many people who went through the foster care system, Don Anderson was really curious about his roots. He started doing some research and realized his biological aunt on his mother's side was living less than three miles away. His wife convinced him to introduce himself. She immediately recognized him and told him he looked like his mother.From there, Anderson met his biological mother, then started the research for his biological father. He ended up tracing his roots for generations, and now helps others trace their ancestry and find relatives. He's written a book about his quest to find his parents.Paper and Spit: How DNA & Genealogy revealed my First Parents' identity by Don AndersonSeason 11: Adoptee Memoirs - books in order:Practically Still a Virgin by Monica HallYou Can't Get Rid of Me by Jesse Scott and Keri AultUnspoken by Liz HarvieSign up for our mailing list to get updates and the Eventbrite for our September 12th & 13th Washington, D.C. Event!Thank you to our Patreons! Join at the $10 level and be part of our monthly ADOPTEE CAFE community. The next meeting will be on Saturday, July 12th, @ 1 PM ET.RESOURCES for Adoptees:S12F Helping AdopteesGregory Luce and Adoptees Rights LawFireside Adoptees Facebook GroupDr. Liz Debetta: Migrating Toward Wholeness MovementMoses Farrow - Trauma therapist and advocateNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1-800-273-8255 OR Dial or Text 988.Unraveling Adoption with Beth SyversonAdoptees Connect with Pamela KaranovaBecause She Was Adopted by Kristal ParkeDear Amy, letters to Amy Coney Barrett. A project by Meika RoudaSupport the showTo support the show - Patreon.

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, we bring you the best of Mark Levin on the forth of July! There is this Marxist-Islamist movement infiltrating U.S. institutions, especially the Democratic Party. ‘On Power' is a unique educational tool on these threats and it explores the ideological threats of Marxism and Islamism to American liberty, rights, sovereignty, and faith. It delves into the historical, philosophical, and political contexts of these issues, contrasting the Judeo-Christian belief system with Marxist-Islamist ideologies. Also, David Trulio, President and CEO of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute calls in to announce Mark's ‘On Power' book signing, lecture and dinner on August 17, 2025 at the Reagan Library. Later, Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, is a Marxist and an Islamist who supports Hamas slogans, the BDS movement, and holds anti-Semitic views, though he reportedly denies these claims. If voted Mayor of NYC he will cause New York City's decline, with good people leaving and radical Islamists arriving.  Mamdani's positions, including his criticism of Israel and Marxist beliefs, are incompatible with American values and pose a threat to New York City, particularly given its large Jewish population. Mamdani's nomination reflects a broader strategy by Islamists to infiltrate American institutions. We need to confront these ideologies directly. Finally,  there were two big Supreme Court cases. In a 6-3 Supreme Court decision written by Justice Barrett, the court ruled against universal injunctions, asserting federal courts lack authority to broadly oversee the executive branch. Barrett's opinion emphasizes courts must stay within Congress-granted powers, preventing judicial overreach that could undermine the presidency and constitutional framework. Justice Jackson's dissent is radical. The ruling protects the democratic processes. In addition, there was a 6-3 decision written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who challenged the school board's policy of mandating LGBTQ and related curricula in elementary schools without informing parents or allowing them to opt out. This decision reinforces protections for religious freedom and parental authority. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On June 27, the Supreme Court wrapped up its extraordinarily consequential, controversial, and, at times, surprising term. Imani and Jess break down the best and worst of the 2024-2025 opinions, and what it could mean for the future of the nation. All that and… alligators? Tune into the final episode of this season of Boom! Lawyered.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here.

On June 27, the Supreme Court wrapped up its extraordinarily consequential, controversial, and, at times, surprising term. Imani and Jess break down the best and worst of the 2024-2025 opinions, and what it could mean for the future of the nation. All that and… alligators? Tune into the final episode of this season of Boom! Lawyered.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here.

The brutal smack down of Justice Jackson last week by Justice Barrett raises an important question: Is Jackson the future of SCOTUS?https://mcclanahanacademy.comhttps://patreon.com/thebrionmcclanahanshowhttps://brionmcclanahan.com/supporthttp://learntruehistory.com

Alejandra was adopted at five years old into a Mexican-American family. She had never sought her family of origin, but when they arrived unexpectedly, her inner strength was tested, and her spiritual growth began. I Just Can't Make This Sh!t Up: Overcoming Fear and Accepting My Spiritual Gifts by Alejandra G. BradySeason 11: Adoptee Memoirs - books in order:Practically Still a Virgin by Monica HallYou Can't Get Rid of Me by Jesse Scott and Keri AultUnspoken by Liz HarvieSign up for our mailing list to get updates and the Eventbrite for our September 12th & 13th Washington, D.C. Event!Thank you to our Patreons! Join at the $10 level and be part of our monthly ADOPTEE CAFE community. The next meeting will be on Saturday, July 12th, @ 1 PM ET.RESOURCES for Adoptees:S12F Helping AdopteesGregory Luce and Adoptees Rights LawFireside Adoptees Facebook GroupDr. Liz Debetta: Migrating Toward Wholeness MovementMoses Farrow - Trauma therapist and advocateNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline – 1-800-273-8255 OR Dial or Text 988.Unraveling Adoption with Beth SyversonAdoptees Connect with Pamela KaranovaBecause She Was Adopted by Kristal ParkeDear Amy, letters to Amy Coney Barrett. A project by Meika RoudaSupport the showTo support the show - Patreon.

In this episode, Dinesh examines the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down nationwide restraining orders by district court judges, focusing specifically on Amy Coney Barrett’s majestic reasoning and her slam-dunk on Ketanji Brown Jackson. Dinesh reveals how the Senate modified the big, beautiful bill and argues that it is now virtually assured to become law.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pat's sports corner! Idaho firefighters shot while responding to fire on a mountain. Amy Coney Barrett destroys Ketanji Brown Jackson in Supreme Court rulings. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is making it through the Senate despite GOP defections. U.S. vs. Iran just starting to heat up? More outrageous comments from NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. Pete Buttigieg leads the way for 2028? Martians get a nod in SCOTUS dissent! Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo reach historic peace deal. Another peace deal brokered by the Trump administration. Secretary of State Marco Rubio strikes again! PragerU teams up with the White House to bring the founders to life! Now you know the rest of the story … John Wayne! 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED 00:20 New Pat Gray BINGO! Card 04:11 Jake Paul Wins Another Fight 08:29 Two Firefighters Shot by Sniper 10:35 Three Huge Rulings that Benefit Trump & America 16:52 Trump Calls the Fed Chair a "Stupid Person" 18:23 Trump Says he Won't Negotiate with Canada over Tariffs 21:09 Thom Tillis Voted against Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' 22:07 List of Successes for Donald rump 23:27 Chuck Schumer Forced the 'Big Beautiful Bill' to be Read in Full 31:30 Trump Asked about his Successes in the Past Week 33:00 Trump Weighs-In on NYC Mayoral Race 34:27 Zohran Mamdani Uses an MLK Quote to Push his Socialist Policies 40:05 Jamal Bowman Says the Word "Socialism" has been Weaponized 43:43 Zohran Mamdani Thinks There's Too Many Billionaires 44:25 Zohran Mamdani's Property Tax Plan 51:56 Zohran Mamdani on Defining "Violent Crime" 53:01 Zohran Mamdani Asked Multiple Times to Condemn "Globalize the Intifada" 1:03:21 Poll Says Mayor Pete Leads the Democrat 2028 Presidential Candidate 1:08:38 KJP Brought Up Martians in her Supreme Court Dissent 1:15:01 Rwanda and the Congo Find Peace 1:24:23 PragerU / White House Collaboration Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Story #1: Will breaks down the mean, biting language coming out of the Supreme Court between Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Kentanji Brown Jackson during last week's Supreme Court wins for President Donald Trump. It's not the kind of thing you'd usually hear from the highest court in the land!  Story #2: The Host of the ‘Karol Markowicz Show,' Karol Markowicz, joins Will to dissect the rise in radical rhetoric from the Left with Democratic New York City Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and singer Bob Vylan, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg's struggle with the black vote, and Joy Reid's claim that neither Vice President J.D. Vance nor Secretary Marco Rubio will inherit the MAGA mantle.  Story #3: What are the Top 100 movies of the 21st Century? Will and The Crew debate which movie gets the top spot. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing WillCainShow@fox.com Subscribe to 'Will Cain Country' on YouTube here: Watch Will Cain Country! Follow Will on X: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What a difference a week makes, Iran got bombed to hell and back by the United States and it's B2's. The Supreme Court of the United States justice Amy Coney Barrett goes scorched earth on on DEI hire Ketanji Brown Jackson for ignoring her job. Activist judges were handed massive blow because of that ruling. They cannot get in the way of the Trump agenda frivolously. NYC has a mayorial candiate who's as socialist as it gets, racists, and wants to defund the NYPD because violence is apparently a construct. The guys taking about moving to Ghanna for the Drunkard revolution and China launches a beer stock exchang.  Fun week. Come get it,Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/whiskey-hell-podcast--5683729/support.

It's Monday, June 30th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus South Korea detains 6 Americans sending Bibles into North Korea South Korean authorities detained six Americans today after they attempted to send 1,600 plastic bottles containing miniature Bibles into North Korea by sea, reports International Christian Concern. In Isaiah 55:11, God says, “My Word that goes out from My mouth: It will not return to Me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” According to the Gwanghwa Island police, the Americans are being investigated because they allegedly violated the law on disaster management. The Americans reportedly threw the bottles, which also included USB sticks, money, and rice, into the sea, hoping North Koreans would eventually find them washed up on their shore. The police did not disclose the contents of the USB sticks.   Christian missionaries and human rights groups have attempted to send plastic bottles by sea and balloons by air into North Korea. Sadly, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, who was just elected June 4, 2025, has pledged to halt such campaigns, arguing that such items could provoke North Korea.   According to Open Doors, North Korea is the most dangerous country worldwide for Christians. Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill clears procedural vote The U.S. Senate advanced the latest version of President Trump's “One Big Beautiful Bill” in a procedural vote on June 28, clearing the way for floor debate on the substance of the sweeping megabill, reports The Epoch Times. This moves Republicans one step closer to delivering on key parts of President Donald Trump's second-term agenda. The bill advanced in a vote of 51 to 49, with enough Republican holdouts joining party leaders to avoid the need for Vice President J.D. Vance's tie-breaking vote and to push the measure forward despite lingering concerns about some of its provisions. Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Josh Hawley of Missouri, two pivotal holdouts, said on June 28 that they would vote to advance the megabill, pointing to revisions unveiled by party leaders on June 27 that addressed some of their earlier objections. Hawley, who had previously objected to proposed Medicaid cuts, told reporters on June 28 that he would back not only the motion to proceed, but also final passage of the bill. He credited his decision to new language in the updated bill that delays implementation of changes to the federal cap on Medicaid provider taxes—a provision he said would ultimately bring more federal funding to Missouri's Medicaid program over the next four years. In an attempt to delay passage of the bill, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and his fellow Democrats required that the clerks read the entire 940-page bill out loud, which took 15 hours 55 minutes through yesterday afternoon, reports CBS. The chamber began up to 20 hours of debate on Sunday afternoon which you can watch through a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com. Senate Majority Leader John Thune expects a final vote on the package sometime today. Two GOP defections on Trump's Big Beautiful Bill There were two Republicans who voted against advancing Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, reports The Hill.com. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who opposes a provision to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion, and Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who says the legislation would cost his state $38.9 billion in federal Medicaid funding. Three other Republicans, who had wavered, changed their minds.  Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin changed his “no” vote to “aye,” and holdout Senators Mike Lee of Utah, Rick Scott of Florida, and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming also voted yes to advance the bill. The bill had suffered several significant setbacks in the days and hours before coming to the floor, at times appearing to be on shaky ground. Trump blasted Tillis on Truth Social, vowing to interview candidates to run against him in the upcoming senatorial primary. He said, “Looks like Senator Thom Tillis, as usual, wants to tell the Nation that he's giving them a 68% Tax Increase, as opposed to the Biggest Tax Cut in American History! “America wants Reduced Taxes, including NO TAX ON TIPS, NO TAX ON OVERTIME, AND NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY, Interest Deductions on Cars, Border Security, a Strong Military, and a Bill which is GREAT for our Farmers, Manufacturers and Employment, in general. Thom Tillis is making a BIG MISTAKE for America, and the Wonderful People of North Carolina!” Just one day after drawing President Trump's ire for opposing the party's  sweeping domestic policy package, Senator Tillis surprisingly announced that he will not seek a third 6-year term in 2026, reports The Guardian. Trump's bill does defund Planned Parenthood President Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill still includes language to stop forced taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and Big Abortion for one year, reports LifeNews.com. The good news is that Planned Parenthood defunding is retained in the final version of the bill, but the bad news is that the 10 year funding ban has been scaled back to just one year. According to Planned Parenthood's latest annual fiscal report, the organization killed more than 400,000 babies through abortion in 2023 and 2024 and received nearly $800 million from taxpayers. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said, “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that stops forced taxpayer funding of the abortion industry has been retained in the Senate bill, as we were confident it would, though for one year. This is a huge win.” Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” Call your two U.S. Senators ASAP on Monday at 202-224-3121 to urge them to retain the defunding of Planned Parenthood in the bill. That's 202-224-3121. Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship plan Last Friday, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a major win by allowing it, for now, to take steps to implement its proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, reports NBC News.  TRUMP: “That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system.” In a 6-3 vote, the court granted the request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they only apply to the states, groups and individuals that sued. TRUMP: “This was a big decision, an amazing decision!”  The White House said, “Since the moment President Trump took office, low-level activist judges have been exploiting their positions to kneecap the agenda on which he was overwhelmingly elected. Of the 40 nationwide injunctions filed against President Trump's executive actions in his second term, 35 of them came from just five far-left jurisdictions: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and the District of Columbia. “Now, the Trump administration can promptly proceed with critical action to save the country — like ending birthright citizenship, ceasing sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, and stopping taxpayers from funding transgender surgeries.” Appearing on Fox News Channel, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University Law School Professor, explained that this is a major victory for Trump. TURLEY: “This is a huge win for him. It does negate what has been a stumbling block. These judges have been throwing sand in the works in many of these policies, from immigration to birthright citizenship to [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts -- that will presumably now be tamped down. If these judges try to circumvent that, I think they'll find an even more expedited path to a Supreme Court that's going to continue to reverse some of these, lift some of these injunctions.” President Trump agreed wholeheartedly. TRUMP: “We've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president, to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers.” Professor Turley was shocked by the forcefulness of Amy Coney Barrett's 96-page majority opinion, which took on leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the author of the 20-page dissent.  Barrett wrote, “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. … Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” TURLEY: “The opinion was really radioactive in this takedown of Justice Jackson. I've been covering the Supreme Court for decades. It's rare to see that type of exchange. The important thing to remember is that Justice Barrett delivered what was essentially a pile driver. “But she didn't do it alone. I mean, her colleagues signed on to this. And I think it's very clear that the majority is getting tired of the histrionics and the hysteria that seems to be growing a bit on the left side of the court.” Turley cited two examples of the hyperbolic rhetoric of the three leftist judges on the Supreme Court. TURLEY: “It's the hyperbole that's coming out of the dissent that is so notable. Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor, in that Maryland case, said that giving parents the ability to opt out of a few [pro-homosexual/transgender] lessons was going to, ‘create chaos and probably end public education.' Justice [Ketanji Brown] Jackson saying this could very well essentially be the ‘death of democracy.' It's the type of hyperbole that most justices have avoided.” Even CNN's Michael Smerconish said that Trump is meeting and surpassing expectations. SMERCONISH: “By any objective measure, President Trump has his opponents on the run.” 30 Worldview listeners gave $8,873 to fund our annual budget And finally, toward our $123,500 goal by today, June 30, to fully fund The Worldview's annual budget for our 6-member team, 30 listeners stepped up to the plate. Our thanks to Frederick in Kennesaw, Georgia who gave $20 as well as Michael in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada, Kenyon in Merritt Island, Florida, Leslie in Florham Park, New Jersey, Augustine in Auburn, California,  Anastasia in Beausejour, Manitoba, Canada, and John-William in Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan – each of whom gave $25. We appreciate Tim in Derby, New York who gave $33 as well as Charles from an unknown city, Yvonne in Cornwall, New York, Stephanie in Mesa, Arizona, James and Mary in Glade Valley, North Carolina, Colleen in Goose Creek, South Carolina, Glenn and Linda in Palmdale, California, Timothy and Brenda in Colorado Springs, Colorado, George in Niagara Falls, New York, Keziah in Walpole, New Hampshire, and Bob in Wilmot, South Dakota – each of whom gave $50. We're grateful to God for Samuel in Bartlett, Tennessee, Elizabeth in Cordova, Illinois, Amy in Snohomish, Washington, Kevin in North Bend, Oregon, Carl and Mary in Chaska, Minnesota, and an anonymous donor through the National Christian Foundation – each of whom gave $100. And we were touched by the generosity of Tobi (age 17), Kowa (age 15) Jedidiah (age 14), and Kensington (age 11) in Star, Idaho who pooled their resources and gave $140, Royal in Topeka, Kansas who gave $250, Joe and Becky in Gainesville, Georgia who pledged $40/month for 12 months for a gift of $480, Stuart in Zillah, Washington who gave $500, Stephen in California, Maryland who pledged $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200, and an anonymous donor through the National Christian Foundation who gave $5,000. Those 30 Worldview listeners gave a total of $8,873. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please.  (Drum roll sound effect) $112,959.55!  (People clapping and cheering sound effect)   Wow!  To each one of you who gave Friday and over the weekend, thank you! That means by tonight, we need to raise the final $10,540.45 on this Monday, June 30th, our final day to get across the finish line to fund the 6-member Worldview newscast team. We need to find the final 5 people to pledge $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200.  And another 8 people to pledge $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600. Go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give on the top right.  If you want to make it a monthly pledge, click on the recurring tab. Help fund this one-of-a-kind Christian newscast for another year with accurate news, relevant Bible verses, compelling soundbites, uplifting stories, and practical action steps. Proverbs 12:22 says, “The LORD detests lying lips, but He delights in people who are trustworthy.” We aspire to earn your trust as we report on the news. Stand with us now so we can continue to accurately report the last 24 hours of God's providential story. Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, June 30th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, the Second Industrial Revolution unleashed American capitalism's potential, driving unprecedented economic growth and creating a prosperous middle class. Contrary to Marxist critiques, capitalism delivered widespread benefits through innovation, producing abundant food, housing, medical care, and modern conveniences like clean water and automobiles. These advancements raised life expectancy and living standards far beyond historical norms, showcasing capitalism's ability to foster prosperity and self-correction in open societies, unlike Marxist or autocratic systems. This is an answer to NYC Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani who said he doesn't support capitalism. When you understand capitalism it's very easy to defend.  Also, there were two big Supreme Court cases today. In a 6-3 Supreme Court decision written by Justice Barrett, the court ruled against universal injunctions, asserting federal courts lack authority to broadly oversee the executive branch. Barrett's opinion emphasizes courts must stay within Congress-granted powers, preventing judicial overreach that could undermine the presidency and constitutional framework. Justice Jackson's dissent is radical. The ruling protects the democratic processes. In addition, there was a 6-3 decision written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who challenged the school board's policy of mandating LGBTQ and related curricula in elementary schools without informing parents or allowing them to opt out. This decision reinforces protections for religious freedom and parental authority. Finally, Gianno Caldwell joins to talk about his new book, The Day My Brother Was Murdered: My Journey Through America's Violent Crime Crisis. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In breaking news, the MAGA majority of the Supreme Court led by Amy Coney Barrett in the Birthright Citizenship/14th Amendment case,  just destroyed 100 years of precedent that allowed Federal trial court judges to issue nationwide injunctions to address the nationwide harm caused by a President's abuse of power, declaring that only the Supreme Court can fashion nationwide relief. Michael Popok explains that to protect 14th Amendment birthright citizenship, lawyers in 3 states will have to move quickly to either certify a class action and/or get their cases declaring Trump's Executive Order unconstitutional back to the US Supreme Court on an emergency basis, as tens of thousands of babies born in red states and thejr citizenship and federal funding hang in the balance. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. Supreme Court handed  President Donald Trump a major victory, curbing court injunctions that halted his plans to end automatic birthright citizenship.  Michele Goodwin, Mark Joseph Stern, and NJ Attorney General Matt Platkin join The Weekend to discuss the SCOTUS ruling fallout. David Corn also joins The Weekend to discuss Senate Republicans' effort to get President Trump's massive agenda passed and get the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," to his desk by a self-imposed July 4th deadline. 

This week we get back into what's happening right now. The SCOTUS ruled on a few important cases including how to consume porn in Texas. Now you have to provide your ID to watch porn, which is not ideal for people who watch porn.

Bo focuses on recent Supreme Court rulings impacting the Trump administration and religious liberties in schools. Justice Barrett's opinion on limiting universal injunctions is highlighted, describing how the decision restricts the power of individual district court judges to block presidential actions nationwide. The episode also covers dissenting opinions from Democratic appointees and reactions from political figures like Pam Bondy and President Trump. Another major ruling discussed is related to parental rights and the ability to opt-out children from LGBTQ+ curriculum in public schools due to religious beliefs. Bo delves into the implications of these decisions and features responses, including a press conference with President Trump. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Chief Justice John Roberts contorted logic to find a path for Tennessee to enforce its anti-trans law, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett left breadcrumbs for conservatives to lodge future attacks on trans rights. In this week's episode, Imani and Jess break down this devastating decision and more.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here. 

Chief Justice John Roberts contorted logic to find a path for Tennessee to enforce its anti-trans law, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett left breadcrumbs for conservatives to lodge future attacks on trans rights. In this week's episode, Imani and Jess break down this devastating decision and more.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here. 

Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota Peggy Flanagan joins Hysteria to share about the tragic shootings in her state and honor the legacy of her friend and colleague, State Representative Melissa Hortman. Erin and Alyssa also discuss the latest on RFK Jr.'s vaccine quakery, new (bad) discrimination rules in VA hospitals, and their skepticism of Amy Coney Barrett's drift to the left. They wrap up with a petty conversation about shopping cart etiquette and the atrocious styling in Ryan Murphy's latest adaptation. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast. Southern Baptists move to end same-sex marriage in the US (BBC 6/11)‘Extremely disturbing and unethical': new rules allow VA doctors to refuse to treat Democrats, unmarried veterans (The Guardian 6/16)!RFK Jr. replaced everyone on the CDC's vaccine panel. Here's why that matters (NPR 6/13)Baby of Georgia woman who was kept on life support has been delivered: Report (USA Today (USA Today 6/17)A ‘formidable public servant.' Who was Melissa Hortman, the Minnesota state representative assassinated in her home? (CNN 6/14)The suspect in the shooting of 2 Minnesota lawmakers had a 'hit list' of 45 officials (NPR 6/16)How Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left (NYT 6/15)Supreme Court upholds Tennessee's youth transgender care ban (The Hill 6/18)

Terry Mattingly of Rational Sheep Rational Sheep Pop Goes Religion: Faith in Popular Culture GetReligion.org The post A New York Times Article, “Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left” – Terry Mattingly, 6/18/25 (1692) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month Shopify trial and start selling today at shopfiy.com/damagereport Elon Musk throws the Republicans in chaos after he slams Trump's big bill. Rand Paul pushes back on Trump after his attacks. Marjorie Greene admits she voted for a bill she didn't read. Trump is reviewing Biden's pardons. A DOGE official was fired after saying the government was already efficient. Trump is furious over Amy Coney Barrett. Steve Bannon wants Lindsey Graham imprisoned.  Host: Sharon Reed (@SharonReedLive) Co-Host: Viviana Vigil ***** SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE TIKTOK  ☞           https://www.tiktok.com/@thedamagereport INSTAGRAM  ☞   https://www.instagram.com/thedamagereport TWITTER  ☞         https://twitter.com/TheDamageReport FACEBOOK  ☞     https://www.facebook.com/TheDamageReportTYT

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, a terrorist executed two Israeli Embassy employees, Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky, outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Rodriguez said he acted for Palestine and for Gaza and was arrested on scene after discarding a 9mm handgun. He is a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. We have this fusion of Marxist and Islamist ideologies threatening the West and antisemitic incidents globally. Weak Western policies, foreign funding from Qatar and China, open borders, and ineffective legal systems are enabling this internal threat. This Marxist-Islamist alliance aims to undermine Western civilization from within, exploiting universities where ideological conformity stifles academic freedom, funded by taxpayers and parents. The ongoing internal war, evident in cities like London, Paris, and Washington, threatens national survival, with some political defenses and isolationist views exacerbating the crisis. Also, the Supreme Court, in a 4-4 split with Justice Barrett recusing herself, failed to rule on a case from Oklahoma, effectively blocking a proposed Catholic charter school due to Chief Justice John Roberts likely siding with the liberal justices. This upheld a lower federal court's decision against state funding for religious charter schools - such funding does not breach the Constitution's Establishment Clause. Later, Erin Molan calls in to discuss her horror and anger at the global rise of the Marxist Islamist movement, particularly in the U.S., Australia, and Europe. Molan condemns Qatar's role in funding terrorism and spreading harmful narratives.  Finally, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Michael Leiter calls in to explain that the terrorist in D.C is an evil nexus of Marxism and Islamism – the Red Green Alliance. This alliance is a dangerous, totalitarian fusion responsible for significant historical and ongoing violence, particularly Iran's role in promoting a death cult with nuclear ambitions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, the Supreme Court addressed a case involving President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. These national injunctions represent an unconstitutional overreach by federal district courts, lacking a historical or constitutional basis, and justices like Ketanji Brown Jackson are promoting a "deconstitutionalization" of government by justifying such injunctions as a means to force quick Supreme Court review.  The judiciary's actions, particularly from activist judges, are a dangerous expansion of power that undermines the Constitution and executive authority, especially in critical areas like national security. The 14th Amendment was solely intended to grant citizenship to children of former slaves, not to children of foreigners, and that the current practice of birthright citizenship is a constitutional fiction unsupported by historical evidence.  This case is fundamentally about power—specifically, who has the authority to make critical decisions. Activist federal district judges, backed by justices like Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett, are wielding negative power to overturn the last election and undermine the Constitution by endorsing these injunctions. Prediction: the Court, lacking courage, will likely uphold the status quo, citing long-standing executive branch practice and the potential burden on future children born in the U.S., thus perpetuating a misinterpretation of the Constitution that threatens American liberty. Later, Iran refuses to halt its centrifuge operations, which, if not destroyed, preserves its nuclear bomb program. Iran must never get a nuclear weapon. Over 200 Republicans agree and have called on President Trump to dismantle Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices