Podcast appearances and mentions of Brett Kavanaugh

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureTrump placed tariffs on many nations, the Asian nation exports are surging, even with the tariffs. More money for the people. Fuel prices are below $2 in many states. Trump has cut 646 regulations.Trump is using the Jacksonian Pivot to bring down the [CB] and go back to the constitution. The [DS] is losing it money laundering system. They are having a difficult time funding their operations. Trump is continually putting the squeeze on the [DS] and each nation run by dictators is going to fall one by one. Trump gave the [DS] 8 months to comply with his EO. He brought the NG into their states, they forced them out. He gave them a chance but they decided to escalate the situation. Next move is POTUS. Economy (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2008258196322856968?s=20   all-time high. This is despite US tariffs which were initially set at to 49%, but later negotiated down to ~20%. At the same time, Chinese exports to the US plunged -40% YoY in Q3 2025. This comes as the region has a massive cost advantage over US and European manufacturing, which ranges from 20% to 100%, even after tariffs. Companies use Southeast Asian economies as alternative export bases to avoid China’s 37% reciprocal tariff. As a result, the amount of trade rerouting from China hit a record $23.7 billion in September. US trade flows are shifting sharply amid tariffs. https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/2008327708200104042?s=20 https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/2008516399564509382?s=20  https://twitter.com/DrJStrategy/status/2008306299235189133?s=20   and a decisive shift of policy emphasis toward productive capital and economic sovereignty rather than financial engineering, Trump has reoriented the engines of growth toward productive capital, investment, industry, and national capacity. Anchored by the Trump Corollary, asserting a sovereign, American‑led Western Hemisphere and demonstrated in both the flawless military operation in Venezuela and the broader regime‑pressure strategy, this doctrine is not theater but an integrated fusion of economic, security, and hemispheric power. These changes are as profound in their structural implications as the original Jacksonian pivot, and those who assume Trump is a merely performative politician and strategist are therefore sorely mistaken, confusing a disruptive style with a coherent focused project to realign America's coalition, its economic model, and its role in the world. Political/Rights https://twitter.com/KatieMiller/status/2008286018722562351?s=20 https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/2008263492030349618?s=20 Hilton Axes Hotel From Their Systems After Video Shows Them Continuing to Ban DHS and ICE Agents  https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/2008497245826556404?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2008497245826556404%7Ctwgr%5E65c50b3797a2e502ba8c026a05c290955554706a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2026%2F01%2F06%2Fhilton-axes-hotel-from-their-systems-after-video-shows-them-continuing-to-ban-dhs-and-ice-agents-n2197811 Less than two hours after the video had been uploaded to X, Hilton issued another statement saying they were dropping that particular hotel from their list of franchisees and accusing ownership of lying to them about making corrections to their policy. https://twitter.com/HiltonNewsroom/status/2008522493171298503?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2008522493171298503%7Ctwgr%5E65c50b3797a2e502ba8c026a05c290955554706a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2026%2F01%2F06%2Fhilton-axes-hotel-from-their-systems-after-video-shows-them-continuing-to-ban-dhs-and-ice-agents-n2197811 Source: redstate.com https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2008256013162410201?s=20   mandatory detention without bond hearings. Judges opposing the move admitted the goal is to promote self-deportation rather than extended courtroom battles. Conservatives say the numbers reveal a coordinated judicial campaign to override Trump’s immigration policy. SCOTUS has yet to rule on the matter. DOGE Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board Votes to Dissolve Organization in Act of Responsible Stewardship to Protect the Future of Public Media   The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress to steward the federal government's investment in public broadcasting, announced today that its Board of Directors has voted to dissolve the organization after 58 years of service to the American public. The decision follows Congress's rescission of all of CPB's federal funding and comes after sustained political attacks that made it impossible for CPB to continue operating as the Public Broadcasting Act intended. Source:  cpb.org Geopolitical https://twitter.com/Object_Zero_/status/2008524560891588691?s=20   flight path (ballistic or powered) from Kola to anywhere on the lower 48, then everything goes over Greenland. Greenland is the theatre where any strategic exchange between Washington and Moscow is contested. If you want to intercept a ballistic missile, the best point to do so is at the apogee, at the top of the flight path. The shortest route for an interceptor to get to an apogee is from directly below the apogee. That's where Greenland is. So, without stating what should happen here, this is **why** the Trump administration says they **need** Greenland for national security. The other thing that is happening is that the Northern Passage through the Arctic is opening up, and soon there will be Chinese cargo ships sailing through the Arctic to Rotterdam. It's faster than the Suez and the ships aren't limited to Suezmax size so China and EU trade is going to accelerate a lot. This means Chinese submarines will also be venturing under the Arctic into the Northern Atlantic, IF THEY AREN'T ALREADY DOING SO. Hence, the North East coast of Greenland serves not 1 but 2 critical strategic security objectives of US national security. If this wasn't clear to you, please understand that the Mercator global map projection is for children and journalists only. It is not a useful guide to where any countries or territories actually are in the real world that we live in. No self respecting adult should be using Mercator for their worldview. Anyone saying “there must be some other secret reason for Trump being interested in Greenland” is a certified ignoramus. https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/2008414070425206927?s=20  permission from the Ministry of Defense. “We want to clarify that what happened in downtown Caracas was because some drones flew over without permission and the police fired dissuasive shots. No confrontation took place. The whole country is in total tranquility,” said a Spokesman for the Information Ministry. https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/2008420269480694261?s=20  Miraflores Presidential Palace.   Seems like a failed coup attempt https://twitter.com/jackprandelli/status/2008298246675021881?s=20   offshore oil, creating a massive geopolitical risk. The most immediate outcome in capture of Maduro is to neutralize this threat and secure the operating companies stakes in Guyana, as well as Western Hemisphere’s energy security. By stabilizing Guyana’s production, which is set to hit 1.7 million barrels per day, the intervention guarantees way more oil flow in near term than reviving Venezuela’s aged infrastructure and heavy sour oil. This move protects billions in U.S. investment and positions Guyana producers as the ultimate winners. https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/2008448254095012088?s=20 https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/2008591197728813564?s=20  Mass Protests Enter 9th Straight Day in Iran — Regime Accused of Killing Young Woman and Multiple Peaceful Protesters as Officials Deny Responsibility — Brave 11-Year-Old Iranian Boy Calls on Nation: “Take to the Streets! We Have Nothing to Lose!” (VIDEO)  Protests against Iran's murderous Islamic regime continued across the country for a ninth straight day over the weekend, as nationwide unrest intensifies and the government struggles to maintain control. Demonstrations have now spread to multiple cities throughout Iran, with citizens openly defying the Islamic Republic and targeting its symbols of power. The latest wave of protests was initially sparked by the collapse of Iran's currency, further devastating an already-crippled economy and pushing ordinary Iranians to the brink. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2008537318035173629?s=20 https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2008532051331526713?s=20 https://twitter.com/infantrydort/status/2008501122902774238?s=20   when reminded that teeth still exist. They insist the world runs on rules now and that borders are sacred. Also that true power has been replaced by paperwork. This belief is not moral in the least. It's f*****g archaeological. They live inside institutions built by violence, defended by men they no longer understand, and guaranteed by forces they refuse to acknowledge. Like tourists wandering a fortress, they admire the stonework while mocking the idea of a siege. They confuse order with nature. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Then blame the person that reminds them of this. Civilization is not the default state of humanity. It is an achievement that is temporary, fragile, and expensive. It exists only where force once cleared the ground and still quietly patrols the perimeter. A lion does not debate the ethics of hunger. Neither does a starving empire. History is not a morality play, it is a pressure test. When pressure rises, abstractions collapse first. Laws follow power; they do NOT precede it. Property exists only where someone can prevent it from being taken. Sovereignty is not declared, it is enforced. The modern West outsourced this enforcement, then forgot the invoice existed. So when someone points out uncomfortable realities (whether about Greenland, Venezuela, or the broader balance of power) they respond with ritual incantations: “You can't do that.” “That's wrong.” “That's against the rules.” As if the rules themselves are armed. As if history paused because we asked nicely. This is how empires fall. Not from invasion alone, but from conceptual rot. From mistaking a long season of safety for a permanent condition. From believing lethality is immoral instead of foundational. Every civilization that forgot how violence works eventually relearned it the hard way. The conquerors did not arrive because they were monsters; they arrived because their victims could no longer imagine them. The tragedy is not that power still exists. The tragedy is that so many have forgotten it does. Idk who needs to hear this but civilization is a garden grown atop a graveyard. Ignore the soil, and someone else will plant something far less gentle. Hate me for being the messenger and asking the hard questions about conquest if you want. You're just wasting your time. War/Peace Zelenskyy Announces the Appointment of Former Canadian Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland as Economic Advisor  Chrystia Freeland was the former lead of the Canadian trade delegation when Trudeau realized he needed to try and offset the economic damage within the renegotiated NAFTA agreement known as the USMCA. Freeland was also the lead attack agent behind the debanking effort against Canadian truckers who opposed the vaccine mandate. In addition to holding Ukraine roots, the ideology of Chrystia Freeland as a multinational globalist and promoter for the World Economic Forum's ‘new world order' is well documented.    given the recent revelations about billions of laundered aid funds being skimmed by corrupt members of the Ukraine government, we can only imagine how much of the recovery funds would be apportioned to maintaining the life of indulgence the political leaders expect. In response to the lucrative “voluntary” appointment, Chrystia Freeland has announced her resignation from Canadian government in order to avoid any conflict of interest as the skimming is organized. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2008618653500273072?s=20 https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2008610869924757613?s=20 this aligns with Trump’s stated approach, where Europe takes a leading role in postwar security but with American support to ensure durability—such as the proposed 15-year (or potentially longer) guarantees discussed in recent talks. The “Coalition of the Willing” (including the UK, France, Germany, and others) is coordinating these pledges to reassure Kyiv, but the framework explicitly ties into U.S.-backed elements like ceasefire verification and long-term armaments.  Russia has not yet shown willingness to compromise on core demands, so the deal’s success remains uncertain, but this step advances the security pillar of the overall plan. Medical/False Flags https://twitter.com/DerrickEvans4WV/status/2008435766742179996?s=20    dangerous diseases. Parents can still choose to give their children all of the Vaccinations, if they wish, and they will still be covered by insurance. However, this updated Schedule finally aligns the United States with other Developed Nations around the World. Congratulations to HHS Secretary Bobby Kennedy, CDC Acting Director Jim O'Neil, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, CMS Administrator Dr. Oz, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, and all of the Medical Experts and Professionals who worked very hard to make this happen. Many Americans, especially the “MAHA Moms,” have been praying for these COMMON SENSE reforms for many years. Thank you for your attention to this matter! DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2008416829404746084?s=20  https://twitter.com/WeTheMedia17/status/2008558203077095579?s=20 President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2008278499153637883?s=20   who tried to kill Justice Kavanaugh at his family home in Maryland. Read: https://twitter.com/mirandadevine/status/2008312587197497804?s=20 https://twitter.com/PubliusDefectus/status/2008542355838955625?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2008542355838955625%7Ctwgr%5E08a8ea4b3726984aaeb1e460fafe90ec5a25b84f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2026%2F01%2Fhillary-clinton-launches-attack-trump-january-6%2F Developing: Lt. Michael Byrd Who Shot Ashli Babbitt Dead on Jan. 6, 2021 in Cold Blood, Runs an ‘Unaccredited' Day-Care Center in Maryland at His Home and Has Pocketed $190 Million in HHS Funds   Captain Michael Byrd and his home daycare in Maryland. In one of his autopen's last acts before Joe Biden left office was to pardon Capt. Mike Byrd, the DC officer who shot and killed January 6 protester Ashli Babbitt in cold blood during the protests on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021.  Paul Sperry discovered recently and posted on Tuesday that Former Lt., now Captain Mike Byrd, has been running an unaccredited day-care center with his wife in their Maryland home since 2008. That is nearly 17 years! The Byrds have received $190 million in this HHS day-care scheme. Via Paul Sperry. Via Karli Bonne at Midnight Rider: https://twitter.com/PattieRose20/status/2008547480431218991?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2008547480431218991%7Ctwgr%5Ec607b3d9ed0b3fbdb6e390fdfadc416d9a45a379%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F%3Fp%3D1506321 Source: thegatewaypundit.com The White House has published a page revealing the full TRUE story of January 6 — before, during, and after. It includes: – Video and evidence showing Nancy Pelosi's involvement – A complete, detailed timeline of events – A tribute to those who died on or because of J6 A full investigation into Nancy Pelosi and everyone involved is now essential. You can view the page here: https://whitehouse.gov/j6/  https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/2008569594550895005?s=20 EKO Put This Out April 28, 2025. President Trump signs Executive Order 14287 in the Oval Office. The title reads like standard bureaucracy: “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.” But in the third paragraph, a single phrase changes everything: Sanctuary jurisdictions are engaging in “a lawless insurrection against the supremacy of Federal law.” Insurrection. The exact statutory term from 10 U.S.C. §§ 332-333 . The language that unlocks the Insurrection Act of 1807. Georgetown Law professor Martin Lederman publishes analysis within days. The executive order mirrors Section 334 requirements. The formal proclamation to disperse before military deployment. It designates unlawful actors, issues formal warning, establishes consequences. Governors dismiss it as political theater. Constitutional attorneys recognize something else. The proclamation was already issued. Trump just didn't announce it as such. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK January 20, 2025. Inauguration Day. Hours after taking the oath, Trump issues Proclamation 10886 declaring a national emergency at the southern border. Section 6(b) requires a joint report within 90 days on whether to invoke the Insurrection Act. The deadline falls April 20, 2025. Eight days later comes Executive Order 14287 . National emergency declaration establishes crisis conditions. The 90-day clock forces formal evaluation. The executive order provides the legal predicate. Section 334 of the Insurrection Act mandates the president issue a proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse before deploying military force. April 28 order satisfies every requirement. It names the actors. Describes their unlawful conduct. Warns of consequences. Grants opportunity to comply. Governors treated it as negotiation leverage. It was legal notification. The trap locked in April 2025. Everything since has been documentation. THE TESTING PHASE Throughout 2025, the administration attempts standard enforcement. National Guard deployments under existing authority. October 4, 2025 . Trump federalizes 300 Illinois National Guard members to protect ICE personnel in Chicago. Governor J.B. Pritzker files immediate legal challenge. Federal courts block the deployment. Posse Comitatus restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement. November 2025 . Portland judge issues permanent injunction against Guard deployment in Oregon. December 23, 2025 . The Supreme Court denies emergency relief in Trump v. Illinois. Justice Kavanaugh files a brief concurrence with a consequential footnote: “One apparent ramification of the Court's opinion is that it could cause the President to use the U.S. military more than the National Guard.” Northwestern Law professor Paul Gowder decodes the signal : “This is basically an invitation for Trump to go straight to the Insurrection Act next time.” The courts established ordinary measures cannot succeed when states organize systematic resistance. They certified that regular law enforcement has become impracticable. They documented the exact threshold Section 332 requires. The founders designed a system that assumed conflict between federal and state authority. For decades, that friction was suppressed. Emergency powers normalized after 9/11, federal agencies expanded into state domains, courts deferred to administrative expertise. The Guard deployment battles weren't system failure. They were constitutional gravity reasserting itself. Courts blocking deployments under Posse Comitatus didn't weaken Trump's position. They certified that ordinary measures had become impracticable, crossing Section 332's threshold. December 31, 2025 . Trump announces Guard withdrawal from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland via Truth Social. Governor Newsom celebrates: “President Trump has finally admitted defeat.” But the machine's interpretation misreads strategic repositioning as retreat. You cannot claim ordinary measures have been exhausted if contested forces remain deployed. Pull back. Let obstruction resume unchecked. Document the refusal. Then demonstrate what unilateral executive action looks like when constitutional authority aligns. THE DEMONSTRATION Trump v. United States . THE HIDDEN NETWORKS Intelligence sources describe what the roundups since fall 2025 actually target. Embedded cartel operatives running fentanyl distribution chains under state-level protection. The riots following military arrests aren't organic resistance. They're funded backlash from criminal enterprises losing billions. Pre-staged materials appear at protest sites. Simultaneous actions coordinate across jurisdictions. The coordination runs deeper. Federal employee networks across multiple agencies held Zoom training sessions in early 2025. Officials with verified government IDs discussed “non-cooperation as non-violent direct action,” the 3.5% rule for governmental collapse, and infrastructure sabotage through coordinated sick calls. They planned to make federal law enforcement impracticable. The exact language Section 332 requires. Sanctuary policies exist because cartel operations generate billions flowing through state systems. Governors sit on nonprofit boards receiving federal grants. Those nonprofits contract back to state agencies, cycling federal dollars through “charitable” organizations. Cartel cash launders through these same construction and real estate networks. When Trump's operations extract high-value targets, they disrupt the business model. The Machine defends itself through coordinated obstruction designed to make federal enforcement impracticable. This transcends immigration policy. This tests whether states can capture governance for criminal enterprises and nullify federal supremacy. THE LINCOLN PARALLEL Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation confounded supporters and critics alike. Abolitionists expected moral thunder. Instead they received dry legalese about “military necessity” and “war powers.” The document deliberately avoided the word “freedom.” It specified which states, parishes, counties. It exempted border states still in the Union. Constitutional historians recognize the genius. Lincoln wasn't making a moral proclamation. He was establishing irreversible legal predicate under war powers. Once issued, even Northern defeat couldn't fully restore slavery. The proclamation made restoration of the old order structurally impossible. Trump's April 28 order follows identical construction. Critics expected immigration rhetoric. Instead: technical language about “unlawful insurrection” and “federal supremacy.” Specified sanctuary jurisdictions, formal notification procedures, funding suspensions. Avoided inflammatory language. Constitutional attorneys recognize the structure. Irreversible legal predicate under insurrection powers. Even political defeat cannot fully restore sanctuary authority. States would have to prove they're not in systematic insurrection. Both presidents disguised constitutional warfare as administrative procedure. THE COMPLETE RECORD When you review the eight-month timeline you recognize what most ‘experts' miss. The April 28 EO satisfied every Section 334 requirement. It designated sanctuary conduct as insurrection. It provided formal notification. It established consequences. It granted eight months to comply. Compliance never arrived. California and New York passed laws shielding criminal networks. Illinois officials threatened to prosecute ICE agents. Multiple states coordinated legal defenses against federal authority. Courts blocked every standard enforcement attempt. They certified that ordinary measures have become impracticable. Every statutory requirement checks complete: Formal proclamation warning insurgents to disperse: April 28, 2025 Executive Order 14287 Extended opportunity to comply: Eight months from April to December 2025 Documented systematic multi-state obstruction: Sanctuary laws, prosecution threats, coordinated resistance Exhausted ordinary enforcement measures: Guard deployments blocked by federal courts Judicial certification of impracticability: Supreme Court ruling with Kavanaugh footnote The legal architecture stands finished. The predicate has been established. Only the final triggering event remains. Thomas Jefferson signed the Insurrection Act into law on March 3, 1807 . He understood executive authority: forge the instrument ahead of the storm, then await the conditions that justify its use. Abraham Lincoln used it to preserve the Union when eleven states organized systematic resistance. Ulysses S. Grant invoked it to shatter the Ku Klux Klan when Southern governments refused to protect Black citizens. Dwight Eisenhower deployed federal troops to enforce Brown v. Board when Arkansas chose defiance. Each invocation followed the same pattern. Local authorities refuse to enforce federal law. The president issues formal proclamation. Forces deploy when resistance continues. The current situation exceeds every historical precedent in scale and coordination. Multiple state governments coordinating systematic obstruction. Sanctuary jurisdictions spanning dozens of cities. Criminal enterprises funding the resistance through captured state institutions. The April proclamation gave them eight months to stand down. They chose escalation. THE COUNTDOWN The January 4 statement confirms what the legal timeline already established. Prerequisites met. Constitutional threshold crossed and judicially certified. The operational timeline is active. The next escalation triggers the formal dispersal order. Section 334 requires the president issue proclamation ordering insurgents to “disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes” before deploying military force. That's the legal tripwire. Once issued, if obstruction persists after the compliance window closes, federal troops can enforce federal law. Active duty forces under the Insurrection Act. Constitutional. Unreviewable. The forces won't conduct door-to-door immigration raids. They'll provide security perimeters while federal law enforcement executes targeted operations against high-value assets. Operatives. Trafficking nodes. Criminal infrastructure. Targeting oath-bound officials elected and appointed, as well as federal employees who swore to uphold federal law and chose insurrection instead. THE RESTORATION Sanctuary jurisdictions received explicit insurrection warnings last spring. More than half a year to comply. Every olive branch rejected. Courts blocked ordinary enforcement repeatedly, certifying impracticability. The Venezuela op demonstrated unilateral resolve. Yesterday's statement activated the operational sequence. Pattern recognized. Machine is exposed. Evidence is complete. What remains is execution. They're just waiting to hear it tick. The most powerful weapon restrains until every prerequisite aligns. Until mercy extends fully and meets systematic rejection. Until the constitutional framework demands its use. Every prerequisite has aligned. Mercy has been extended and rejected. The framework demands its use. Revolution destroys. Reversion restores. The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves. The Insurrection Proclamation frees a republic.  https://twitter.com/EkoLovesYou/status/2008304655156342936?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2008597603412308341?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen, watching the Supreme Court become the hottest ticket in town, but here we are on this crisp January morning in 2026, with President Donald Trump's legal battles dominating the headlines. Just days ago, on December 23, 2025, the justices handed down a key ruling in Trump v. Illinois, partially siding with the administration in a tense showdown over federalizing the National Guard in Illinois. The majority allowed the move, with Justice Kavanaugh writing a concurrence, while Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, arguing it overstepped state authority. According to the Brennan Center's Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker, this decision came after a First Circuit ruling let it stand, underscoring Trump's push to assert federal control amid rising urban unrest in Chicago.But that's just the appetizer. The real drama kicks off next week. On January 13, the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., will hear oral arguments in two massive challenges to state bans on transgender students—like those in West Virginia and Idaho—playing on sports teams matching their gender identity. KVUE News reports these cases hinge on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. Challengers say the bans unfairly sideline kids like Becky Pepper-Jackson in West Virginia, who's been fighting since 2021 to compete in girls' track.Then, on January 21, all eyes turn to Trump v. Cook, a blockbuster testing presidential firing powers. President Trump tried to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in August 2025, citing alleged mortgage fraud from before her 2023 appointment to the Fed's Board in Washington. A D.C. district judge blocked it, and now the Supreme Court has deferred any stay until arguments, per the official docket for case 25A312. The Constitution Center notes this stems from the Federal Reserve Act, which only allows removal "for cause," not at-will. If Trump wins, it could reshape independent agencies like the Fed, which steers the U.S. economy with trillions in influence—think interest rates affecting your mortgage or job market.These aren't isolated fights. The Court's fall term already tackled Trump v. Slaughter on firing a Federal Trade Commissioner and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump over tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker logs dozens more, from immigration deportations under the Alien Enemies Act in Trump v. J.G.G. to earlier agency head removals. With decisions due by June, the stakes couldn't be higher—executive power, civil rights, economic stability all colliding.As I sip my coffee, scrolling updates from the National Constitution Center, I can't help but wonder: will this term redefine Trump's second presidency? The justices, from Chief Justice John Roberts to the newest voices, hold the gavel.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Hey there, listeners, buckle up because the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been on fire these past few days, handing President Donald Trump and his administration a string of high-stakes wins in battles over everything from the National Guard to passports and federal spending. Just eight days ago, on December 23, 2025, the Court ruled in Trump v. Illinois, siding against the administration's bid to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois without state consent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, while Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the move was essential for national security amid rising unrest in Chicago. The Brennan Center's Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker notes this as one of only five losses for the administration since January, out of 25 emergency decisions, with most favoring Trump at least partially and often with minimal explanation.But don't let that one setback fool you—the Court has been overwhelmingly pro-administration lately. On November 6, the justices greenlit the State Department's policy refusing passports that reflect transgender applicants' gender identity for a certified class of plaintiffs, overruling lower courts in a terse order. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented sharply, warning it tramples civil rights. This fits a pattern: back on October 3 in Noem v. National TPS Alliance, the Court forced the government to release congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds, with Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, blasting it as executive overreach. Earlier, September 22's Trump v. Slaughter let the administration dodge discovery demands from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington over DOGE Service materials under the Freedom of Information Act.Rewind a bit further into this whirlwind year, and the shadow docket explodes with immigration clashes. In Noem v. Doe on May 30, the Court allowed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to revoke parole en masse for half a million noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, skipping individual reviews—Justice Jackson dissented alongside Sotomayor. April's Trump v. J.G.G. permitted deportations of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, despite dissents from Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and even partial pushback from Amy Coney Barrett. A.A.R.P. v. Trump on April 19 blocked removals of Venezuelan nationals, a rare check, with Kavanaugh concurring and Alito dissenting.Civil service purges? Check: McMahon v. New York on July 14 okayed firing Department of Education employees, while Trump v. Boyle upheld Trump's power to boot Consumer Product Safety Commission members without cause. Even LGBTQ+ rights took hits, like United States v. Shilling in May letting the Defense Department terminate transgender service members. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker highlights ongoing suits, including a coalition of nonprofits and cities challenging the suspension of November 2025 SNAP benefits—a case that echoes lower court fights like District of Rhode Island's order to fully fund them.Since Inauguration Day, the Supreme Court's emergency docket—mostly Department of Justice filings—has tilted 20-to-5 toward Trump, per SCOTUSblog and Shadow Docket Watch data. Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh often push back against blocks, while the liberal trio fights rearguard actions. As 2025 wraps, two applications still pend, promising more drama.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court hand President Donald Trump a rare courtroom defeat, but here we are, listeners, on the heels of Christmas 2025. Just days ago, on December 23, the Justices in Washington, D.C., issued a sharp three-page unsigned order in Trump v. Illinois, rejecting the Trump administration's emergency plea to deploy the Illinois National Guard and Texas National Guard troops to Chicago. Picture this: Back on October 4, President Trump federalized 300 Illinois National Guard members to safeguard federal property amid reports of riots—protesters hurling tear gas canisters at officers, yanking off gas masks, even targeting them with bullhorns that could cause permanent hearing loss. The administration argued it was essential under federal law, citing unrefuted declarations of violence that local police in Chicago couldn't handle alone.But a federal judge in Chicago slapped down a temporary restraining order, and the Supreme Court let it stand. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented fiercely—Alito's opinion called out the lower court for ignoring the facts, questioning why grand jury no-indictments for some rioters weren't enough to discredit the violence claims. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred separately, but the majority sided against the administration, marking a loss in the shadow docket frenzy that's defined Trump's second term. According to the Brennan Center's tracker, since January 20, 2025, the Court has ruled on 25 such emergency applications challenging Trump actions—20 at least partially in his favor, but this one, no dice. SCOTUSblog reported it straight: the deployment stays blocked while litigation drags on.This isn't isolated. Oral arguments wrapped up just last month on November 5 in Learning Resources v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. VOS Selections before the Supreme Court. At stake? Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets President Trump slap trade tariffs during national emergencies he declares—and if so, does it unconstitutionally hand Congress's power to the executive? Dykema's legal alert calls it the term's biggest case, pitting presidential authority against separation-of-powers limits. Whispers from the bench suggest the Justices are skeptical, probing the delegation doctrine hard.Meanwhile, Trump's legal battles echo from his first term. In New York, Judge Juan Merchan's decision in People v. Donald J. Trump keeps sentencing on ice—pushed from July 2024 past the election to November 26 at Trump's own request, now stayed pending Supreme Court immunity fallout from Trump v. United States. Federal appeals upheld a jury's E. Jean Carroll verdict against him, with no reversal in sight. And the floodgates? Education policies sparked 71 lawsuits in 2025 alone, per Education Week, with Trump losing nearly 70 percent at lower courts. Immigration clashes rage on—from Noem v. Doe revoking parole for half a million from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, to Alien Enemies Act deportations where the Court sometimes greenlights, sometimes blocks.It's a whirlwind, listeners—tariffs, troops, tariffs again—reminding us the courts are checking power like never before. As 2025 closes, Trump's docket tests every constitutional seam.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Hey listeners, picture this: it's been a whirlwind week in the courts for President Donald Trump, with the Supreme Court dropping bombshells that could reshape his administration's bold moves. Just three days ago, on December 23, 2025, the nation's highest court issued a key ruling in Trump v. Illinois, tackling whether President Trump could federalize the Illinois National Guard and even pull in Texas troops to safeguard federal property in Chicago amid escalating violence. According to the Supreme Court's opinion, Trump activated 300 Illinois Guard members on October 4, followed by Texas forces the next day, citing riots where protesters hurled tear gas canisters at officers, tried grabbing firearms, and blasted bullhorns to cause hearing damage. Justice Alito's dissent slammed the lower District Court in Rhode Island for dismissing the government's unrefuted evidence of chaos, arguing it justified the President's call under federal law. While a majority granted the stay with some reasoning, Kavanaugh concurred, but Alito and Thomas pushed back hard, calling out the eleventh-hour shifts in opponents' arguments. This shadow docket decision, tracked by the Brennan Center, marks one of 25 emergency rulings since Trump took office on January 20, 2025—20 leaning his way, often with minimal explanation.But that's not all from the past few days. Fast-forward to the New York hush money saga: a fresh decision in People v. Donald J. Trump from the Manhattan court, penned by Judge Juan Merchan, shut down Trump's post-election bid to dismiss his 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Remember, a jury convicted him unanimously back in May 2024 for scheming to hide payments to Stormy Daniels, aiming to boost his presidential run through unlawful means. Trump requested delays himself—pushing sentencing past the election to November 26, 2024, then begging for a stay and dismissal after winning. The court wasn't buying it, noting Trump consented to those adjournments without opposition from prosecutors. Merchan emphasized the premeditated deception that eroded public trust, rejecting claims the case evaporates with his presidency, citing the Supreme Court's Trump v. United States immunity ruling but insisting justice demands accountability.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been a Trump turbo-boost all year. Brennan Center reports victories like Trump v. Boyle in July, greenlighting firings at the Consumer Product Safety Commission; McMahon v. New York upholding Education Department workforce cuts; and immigration wins such as Noem v. Doe, allowing mass parole revocations for half a million from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Even on LGBTQ+ fronts, November's ruling backed the State Department's passport gender policies. Not every call went his way—A.A.R.P. v. Trump lost on Venezuelan removals under the Alien Enemies Act—but the pattern's clear: 20 partial wins, with liberals like Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting repeatedly.Lawfare's litigation tracker highlights nonstop challenges, from SNAP benefit suspensions sparking suits by nonprofits and cities, to DOGE transparency fights where CREW got blocked from records. As of now, two more applications simmer. These battles in places like the First Circuit, DC Circuit, and beyond show Trump's team firing on all cylinders, testing presidential power's edges.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

David Waldman takes a short break in his otherwise completely normal day to bring us news of all of the abnormalities of today. Greg Dworkin comes down the chimney with his Sack o' Stories™, attached to that unfortunate sack of Ex-Twitter ex-crement. Jeffrey Epstein is the gift that keeps on giving, and on the third day of Epstein, the DOJ gave to thee a myriad mentions of Trump, 8 Lolita Express trips, 3 criminal co-conspirators, more ties to pedophiles, but nothing much for victims of the crimes. The redactions seem excessive, but you should've seen all the ones that were pre-redacted. Sure, two thirds of Americans are allowed to have sex with little girls... once they are married in holy wedlock. It takes connections, however, to collect underage women. Just ask John Casablancas of Elite Model Management, Paolo Zampolli of ID Model Management, and that guy who founded Trump Model Management. We return to Turning Point USA's flagship event, AmericaFest, to get a sense of the harmony and unity Erika Kirk brings. Neo-Nazi terror group "the Base" is taking advantage of the anti-antifascist environment here and around the world. Trump's arch enemy, wind farms, taunt him on the horizon of his golf courses, and worse yet, help sustain the environment that refuses to kick back to him. So, until Trump can rename the wind "Trump", everyone must suffer. Bari Weiss understands the need for quality journalism yet feels that CBS should give equal weight to propaganda. It's the public's right to know, and the oligarchy's… well it's the oligarchy's. That is all you need to know. What? The Trump Supreme Court just told Trump that he can't deploy the National Guard in Illinois. Trump won't like that. Brett Kavanaugh wants everyone to know that none of this is his fault.

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special Daily Special, Smothered Benedict Wednesday is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, Kavanaugh joined the 6-3 Supreme Court decision that denies Trump the ability to take over each Blue State's national guard, but found time to troll the American people about January 6 and bolster Trump's claims of unlimited power.Then, on the rest of the menu, twenty-one Democratic-led states sued the MAGA White House over consumer protection bureau funding; the city of Newport, Oregon is suing Trump to stop federal officials from building a new immigration gulag there; and, voters sued to suspend Missouri's new MAGA-congressional map until a referendum can be held in November.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where the US barred five Europeans it says were the “masterminds” behind the EU's Digital Services Act that censors online hate; and, a pro-Russian hacking group claimed responsibility for a major cyberattack that halted France's national postal service just days before Christmas.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!“It may be safely averred that good cookery is the best and truest economy, turning to full account every wholesome article of food, and converting into palatable meals what the ignorant either render uneatable or throw away in disdain.” - Eliza Acton ‘Modern Cookery for Private Families' (1845)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

In breaking news, a 6-3 Supreme Court, including 3 of the MAGA right wing, have ruled AGAINST Trump and his method to federalize and take over Blue State national guard troops, and have found, in essence, that unless he uses the Insurrection Act, and then uses the US armed forces first to quell violence, he won't be able to breach state sovereignty and take over state militias and put them to his own use. Michael Popok also takes a close look at Justice Kavanaugh's “concurrence” that not only reads like a dissent, but also trolls the American people with a rewrite of the history of the Jan6 attack on the Capitol to suit his pro-president/Trump jurisprudence. 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 Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: ⁠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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Jim and Greg for the Monday 3 Martini Lunch as they break down growing tensions on the right following a heated Turning Point USA event, Rep. Elise Stefanik's abrupt exit from the New York governor's race, and a Michigan U.S. Senate candidate fantasizing about assaulting U.S. Supreme Court justices.First, they react to Ben Shapiro's speech on how politics and journalism should be conducted, including his sharp criticism of Tucker Carlson for platforming figures like Nick Fuentes without challenging their views. Carlson then returned verbal fire and accused his critics of trying to divide people. Jim says the right is not well-served by tolerating conspiracy theories and playing footsie with anti-Semitism.Next, they dig into why New York Rep. Elise Stefanik decided to pull the plug on her campaign for governor. They also examine how the year started with President Trump choosing Stefanik to be his ambassador to the United Nations and ended with Trump refusing to endorse her run for governor.Finally, they get a glimpse of another unhinged Democrat running for U.S. Senate in Michigan, as State Senator Mallory McMorrow says she heard Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh attended a tailgate at her alma mater of Notre Dame University. McMorrow suggests she would have thrown beer in their faces. But the rest of the Democrats running are also really bad.Please visit our great sponsors:Go to https://OmahaSteaks.com and use code 3ML at checkout for an extra $35 off. Minimum purchase may apply. See site for details. A big thanks to our advertiser, Omaha Steaks!Listeners can start a new tradition this December with 10% off at BetterHelp—visit https://BetterHelp.com/3ML to get started.New episodes every weekday. 

Bugs. Some of them we enjoy more than others! But there's no denying they're a part of life. And though they're small, they're examples of big engineering and design. Today, host Andrew McDiarmid welcomes Discovery Institute staffer Kate Kavanaugh to discuss ID Education Days, whole-day experiences hosted by the Center for Science and Culture and geared specifically for middle and high school students in home or private school settings. Lately, the theme of these events has focused on the creepy crawly complexity found within the world of insects and invertebrates. Far from being mere nuisances, these creatures function as tiny engineers that elegantly solve complex problems to sustain global ecosystems. Kavanaugh highlights insights from recent ID Education Day events and explains the importance of studying even tiny examples of intelligent design in nature. Source

*Mariah Carey voice* IT'S TIIIIIIIIME… For our annual year-in-review! HOE-HOE-HOLY shit, Buzzkillianas. 2025 was a hellacious year in Abortlandia, so you already know the Feminist Buzzkills are re-hashing, re-roasting, re-raging, and even re-celebrating over what went down this year in regards to all tings repro-related. Lizz and Moji took a little sleigh ride down memory lane, made their lists checking them twice, and figured out what stories were the naughtiest, the nicest and the bizarre AF-est! From a certain brainworm host thinking the nation guzzles abortion water, to exposing the hypocrisy of an anti-abobo Bible humper who just got caught using AI to make something so disgusting we'd get banned if we told you—so we're spilling anyway. And YES, there actually were some abobo wins this year too! So, buckle up for our favorite end of year tradition: unpacking the year's top-tier triumphs and bottom-of-the-barrel, bargain-bin bullshit of abortion news. Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: Check out our NEW Operation Save Abortion workshop, recorded a live from Netroots Nation 2025 that'll train you in coming for anti-abobo lawmakers, spotting and fighting against fake clinics, AND gears you up on how to help someone in a banned state access abortion. You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to past Operation Save Abortion trainings by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead @LizzWinsteadMoji Alawode-El @Mojilocks WORST NEWS OF 2025:Lizz: RFK Jr. AppointmentMoji: Tierra Walker BEST NEWS OF 2025:Lizz: My Voice My Choice WinMoji: Generic Abortion Pill Approval WEIRDEST NEWS OF 2025:Lizz: Catch KitMoji: Christian Nationalist Pastor's Son's AI Toddler Porn EPISODE LINKS:WATCH: Full RFK Jr. VideoKennedy Says FDA Is Reviewing Safety of Abortion Pill MifepristoneUS FDA Has Delayed Abortion Pill Safety Study, Bloomberg News ReportsLeaders of 2 Major Anti-Abortion Groups Call for Trump's FDA Chief to Be FiredThe Worst Ways RFK Jr. Has Harmed Public Health This YearWATCH: Ashley Flowers Exposing Jonathan PeternelJunk Science Study on MifepristoneMaternal Mortality in the United States After Abortion BansTierra Walker's Aunt's StatementMy Voice My Choice on Instagram: SAFE ABORTION IN EUROPE IS COMINGMy Voice My ChoiceADOPT-A-CLINIC: The Women's Health Center of MarylandThe Women's Health Center of MarylandTICKETS: Dec 31 - The Lizz Winstead Files at The Parkway TheaterOperation Save AbortionExpose Fake ClinicsBUY AAF MERCH!EMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK Podcast Instagram ~ @AbortionFrontTwitter ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFrontTALK 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! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

Why the Court's majority is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 9 in a series) about the faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act --This continues to be a real hoot. Part 9: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We continue discussing the Republican dissenting opinion of Justice Alito (joined by Thomas) from his Roman numeral I.B through his II.C, stopping at but not commencing his II.D. We'll have one more episode of Alito's dissent (joined by Thomas) and and then one further one on Kavanaugh's dissent, so two more episodes on this Supreme Court case. Part 9. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Drs. Jack Cush and Artie Kavanaugh preview the upcoming RNL 2026 meeting in Dallas, TX on February 7 & 8, 2026. Register at RheumNow.Live Below is the program: Saturday, February 7, 2026, 7:50 - 8:00 am Welcome & Introductions Drs. Cush and Kavanaugh 8:00 - 10:00 am POD I - Rheumatoid Arthritis: Achieving Better Outcomes 8:00 – 8:30 am Mortality in RA: A Story of Decline, Delay, or Plateau? Elena Myasoedova, MD 8:30 – 9:00 am The Mucosal Hypothesis of Rheumatoid Arthritis Kristen Demoruelle, MD 9:00 – 9:30 am ILD in RA – Recent Advances Jeffrey Sparks, MD 9:30 – 10:00 am Rheumatoid arthritis Faculty Q&A 10:00 - 10:15 am STEP 1: Placebos in Rheumatology Andreas Kerschbaumer, MD 10:15 -10:30 am STEP 2: Disease Modification in Osteoarthritis Tuhina Neogi, MD PhD 10:30 – 11:05 Break 11:05 - 12:10 pm POD II – Advancing Practice 11:05 – 11:30 am Obesity & Inflammation: Weight Management in Rheumatology Uzma Haque, MD 11:30 - 11:55 am Mitigating risk in Rheum Pts undergoing surgery Susan Goodman, MD 11:55 -12:10 pm Practice Panel Faculty Q&A 12:10 – 1:00pm Lunch 1:00 – 3:00 pm POD III – Decisions in Psoriatic Arthritis 1:00 - 1:30 pm Paradoxical Psoriasis and Strange Reactions Joseph Merola, MD 1:30 - 2:00 pm Why Do Plain X rays in Psoriatic Arthritis Arthur Kavanaugh, MD 2:00 - 2:30 pm IL-23 vs IL-17 inhibitors in PsA Andre Ribero, MD 2:30 - 3:00 pm Past, Present & Future of Gout Robert Terkeltaub, MD 3:00 - 3:30 pm Psoriatic Faculty Q&A 3:30 - 4:05 pm Break 4:05 - 4:20 pm STEP 3: Helicobacter Pylori update Byron Cryer, MD 4:20 - 4:35 pm STEP 4: History of Gout Robert Terkeltaub, MD 4:35 – 5:15 pm Keynote Address: 50 Years of Osteoporosis Michael McClung, MD 5:30 – 7:00 pm Reception Sunday, February 8, 2026 Day TOPIC Speaker 7:50-8:00 am Welcome & Introductions Drs. Cush and Kavanaugh 8:00 - 10:00 am POD IV – Staying Ahead of Spondyloarthritis 8:00 – 8:30 am Diagnosing Axial Spondyloarthritis in 2026 Denis Poddubnyy, MD 8:30 – 9:00 am Spondyloarthritis Complications Jessica Walsh, MD 9:00 – 9:30 am 2026 Advances in Spondyloarthritis Catherine Bakewell, MD 9:30 – 10:00 am Spondyloarthritis Faculty Q&A 10:00 – 10:15 am STEP 5: Asymptomatic Elevation of CK Rojit Agarwal, MD MS 10:15 – 10:30 am STEP 6: Update on Myositis Antibodies Rojit Agarwal, MD MS 10:30 – 11:05 am Break 11:05 – 12:10 am POD V – Highlights in Autoimmune Disease 11:05 - 11:35 am SMILE Study – Hydroxychloroquine in ANA+ Arthralgia Nancy Olsen, MD 11:35 – 12:05 am Sjogren's Treatment Landscape in 2026 Matthew Baker, MD 12:05 - 12:20 pm Autoimmune Faculty Q&A 12:20 – 1:25 pm POD VI - Large & Small Vessel Vasculitis 12:20 – 12:45 pm Embracing Relapses in PMR and GCA Michael Putman, MD 12:45 - 1:10 pm Small vessel vasculitis Clay Cockerell, MD 1:10 - 1:25 pm Vasculitis Faculty Q&A 1:30 pm Adjourn

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued during oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter that presidents shouldn’t be allowed to fire experts—scientists, economists, doctors—leading independent agencies, asserting such agencies “should not be in presidential control.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh harshly rejected her stance, defending executive authority and congressional accountability. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Broeske & Musson' on all platforms: --- The ‘Broeske & Musson Podcast’ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever else you listen to podcasts. --- ‘Broeske & Musson' Weekdays 9-11 AM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Facebook | Podcast| X | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Wisconsin has continually smashed its own records for expensive political races, in part because the US Supreme in the past has been hostile toward limits on campaign contributions. Now, it's as if Justice Kavanaugh is saying, “Hold my beer.” The court will hear arguments Tuesday that could wipe out the remaining barrier and allow billionaires to bypass limits on campaign donations by letting them use political parties as legal laundering tools. Former Sen. Russ Feingold filed a brief in the case that could have simply said, “Told you so.” Mornings with Pat Kreitlow is powered by UpNorthNews, and it airs on several stations across the Civic Media radio network, Monday through Friday from 6-9 am. Subscribe to the podcast to be sure not to miss out on a single episode! Get more from Pat and UpNorthNews on their website and follow them on X, Facebook, TikTok and Instagram. To learn more about the show and all of the programming across the Civic Media network, head over to civicmedia.us/shows to see the entire broadcast lineup. Follow the show on Facebook, X, and YouTube.

This Day in Legal History: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr's Kid Sworn in as JusticeOn December 8, 1902, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning one of the most storied judicial careers in American history. Appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt, Holmes brought not just legal brilliance but a fierce sense of independence to the bench—qualities that would define his nearly 30-year tenure. He would become known as “The Great Dissenter,” not because he loved conflict, but because he saw the Constitution as a living document that demanded humility, skepticism of dogma, and above all, respect for democratic governance.Holmes shaped modern constitutional law, particularly in his groundbreaking First Amendment opinions. In Schenck v. United States (1919), he famously coined the “clear and present danger” test, establishing a foundational limit on government power to suppress speech. Though that decision upheld a conviction, Holmes's dissent later that year in Abrams v. United States marked his turn toward a much broader vision of free expression—one that laid the groundwork for modern civil liberties jurisprudence.A Civil War veteran wounded at Antietam, Holmes served with the Massachusetts Volunteers and carried shrapnel in his body for the rest of his life. His long memory gave him historical depth: legend holds he met both Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy—Lincoln as a young Union officer in Washington, and JFK decades later when the future president visited the aged Holmes on his 90th birthday. While the Lincoln meeting is plausible and widely accepted, the Kennedy encounter is well documented—photos exist of JFK visiting Holmes in 1932, shortly before the justice's death.Holmes's legal philosophy emphasized restraint, often reminding fellow jurists that the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” He resisted turning the judiciary into a super-legislature, warning against confusing personal preference with constitutional mandate. His opinions, dissents, and aphorisms—“taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” among them—still echo in courtrooms and classrooms today.By the time he retired in 1932 at age 90, Holmes had become an icon: not just a jurist, but a symbol of intellectual honesty and constitutional humility. His December 8 appointment wasn't just another judicial swearing-in—it was the beginning of a philosophical legacy that still defines the boundaries of American legal thought.Amit Agarwal, a former clerk to Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, will soon find himself arguing against the very ideology he once clerked under—defending limits on presidential power in a case that could gut a nearly century-old precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). He'll be representing former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who sued after President Trump gave her the boot, and whose case now tees up a potentially seismic shift in how presidents control independent agencies.At issue is whether the president can remove members of independent commissions—like the FTC—at will, or whether statutory “for cause” protections, created by Congress and upheld since the New Deal, still mean anything. If the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor, it would blow a hole in the legal framework that has shielded multi-member agencies from raw political interference since Roosevelt tried—and failed—to remake the FTC in his own image.Let's pause here: Humphrey's Executor isn't just some dusty New Deal relic. It drew a sharp line between executive officers who serve the president directly and independent regulators who are supposed to be immune from daily political whims. The Court in 1935 said: no, FDR, you can't just fire an FTC commissioner because he's not singing from your hymnbook. That ruling became the backbone of modern agency independence—from the Fed to the SEC to the NLRB. Without it, the next president could dismiss any regulatory head who doesn't toe the party line. You want crypto rules to mean something? Food safety? Banking supervision? Say goodbye to all that if we pretend these agencies are just White House interns with better titles.But here's where it gets interesting: Agarwal is making the conservative case for restraint. Now working at Protect Democracy, he's arguing that letting presidents fire independent commissioners at will isn't a win for constitutional governance—it's a power grab that warps the original design. He's invoked Burkean conservatism—the idea that practical experience should trump theoretical purity—and warns that blind devotion to the “unitary executive theory” threatens institutional integrity more than it protects separation of powers.And Agarwal isn't alone. A collection of conservative legal scholars, former judges, and ex-White House lawyers—some with deep Federalist Society credentials—have filed briefs supporting his position. Their argument? That Humphrey's Executor is an “originalist” decision, faithful to the Founders' ambivalence about concentrated executive power, especially in domestic administration.Still, let's be honest: the Court is unlikely to be swayed by this internal dissent. The Roberts Court has already chipped away at agency independence in decisions like Seila Law (2020) and Loper Bright (2024), where it let Trump fire the CFPB director and overturned Chevron deference respectively. With a solid conservative majority, and multiple justices openly embracing a muscular vision of presidential control, the writing may already be on the wall.Which is precisely what makes Agarwal's stand so notable. This isn't some progressive legal activist parachuting in from the ACLU (though his wife did work there). This is someone who backed Kavanaugh publicly, donated to Nikki Haley, and spent years rising through the conservative legal pipeline—only to conclude that this version of executive power isn't conservative at all. It's reactionary.So what happens if Humphrey's goes down? Beyond the short-term question of whether Slaughter gets her job back, the bigger issue is how much power presidents will wield over what were supposed to be politically insulated regulatory bodies. Will a ruling in Trump's favor mean future presidents can purge the Fed board? Fire NLRB members mid-term? Flatten the independence of enforcement agencies? The Court may claim it's just restoring “constitutional structure,” but don't be surprised if that structure starts to look a lot like one-man rule.Agarwal, to his credit, is saying: not so fast. Sometimes conserving means preserving. And sometimes defending the Constitution means restraining the people who claim to speak for it the loudest.Ex-Alito, Kavanaugh Clerk Defends Limits on Trump's Firing PowerFight over Trump's power to fire FTC member heads to US Supreme Court | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily barred the Justice Department from using evidence seized from Daniel Richman, a former legal adviser to ex-FBI Director James Comey, in any future attempts to revive criminal charges against Comey. The move comes just weeks after the original case was dismissed due to the lead prosecutor's unlawful appointment.At issue is whether federal prosecutors violated Richman's Fourth Amendment rights by searching his personal computer without a warrant during earlier investigations into media leaks tied to Comey's 2020 congressional testimony. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with Richman—for now—saying he's likely to succeed on the merits and ordering the government to isolate and secure the data until at least December 12.The contested materials had been used to support now-dropped charges that Comey made false statements and obstructed Congress regarding FBI leaks about the Clinton and Trump investigations. But Richman, once a special FBI employee himself, argues the search was illegal and wants the files deleted or returned.The Justice Department, undeterred, is reportedly considering a second indictment of Comey. But between shaky prosecutorial appointments and constitutional challenges like this one, their case is rapidly sliding into legally questionable territory.US federal judge temporarily blocks evidence use in dismissed Comey case | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a controversial book removal case out of Llano County, Texas, effectively allowing local officials to keep 17 books off public library shelves—titles that deal with race, LGBTQ+ identity, puberty, and even flatulence.The justices let stand a divided 5th Circuit ruling that found no First Amendment violation in the county's decision to pull the books. That decision reversed a lower court order requiring the books be returned and rejected the plaintiffs' argument that library patrons have a constitutional “right to receive information.” The 5th Circuit held that libraries have wide discretion to curate collections, and that removing titles doesn't equate to banning them altogether—people can still buy them online, the court reasoned.The dispute began in 2021 when local officials responded to complaints by residents, ultimately purging books including Maurice Sendak's In the Night Kitchen (due to nude illustrations), as well as works on slavery and gender identity. Opponents of the removal sued, citing free speech violations. But the case now stands as a significant blow to that theory—at least in the 5th Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene leaves unresolved a key question: does the First Amendment protect not just the right to speak, but the right to access certain information in public institutions? For now, in parts of the South, the answer appears to be no.US Supreme Court turns away appeal of Texas library book ban | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Hawk sits down with his bestie - trial attorney and olive oil entrepreneur Shaana for an unfiltered conversation about the Supreme Court's shadow docket abuse, particularly the Texas gerrymandering case that enables racial discrimination in voting. The discussion covers how SCOTUS is dismantling constitutional protections through emergency rulings without oral arguments or proper opinions, leaving lower court judges with no guidance.The conversation shifts to Pam Bondi's tenure as Attorney General, examining her qualified background as Florida AG from 2010-2018 alongside her failures to investigate Jeffrey Epstein during that period. Despite her credentials, Bondi's DOJ has faced multiple grand jury rejections and court losses, including failed prosecutions and the spectacular dismissal of cases against James Comey and Letitia James.Hawk and Shaana analyze Justice Kavanaugh's concerning concurrence that carved out Fourth Amendment exceptions for ICE stops based solely on race and ethnicity. They explore how the current Supreme Court lacks the intellectual rigor of predecessors like Scalia, with justices like Alito producing poorly reasoned opinions while Thomas and Alito cherry-pick historical context to justify predetermined outcomes.The discussion touches on Supreme Court ethics violations, including Clarence Thomas's unreported gifts and Samuel Alito's luxury vacations from donors with business before the court. They examine how there are no ethics codes governing Supreme Court justices while state court judges face stringent rules. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk- Support Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com- Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole- Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social- Connect on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Podcasts Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.com- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTBSimplecast: https://hawk-droppings.simplecast.com- Hawk Podcasts RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/pPVtxSNJ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KEOmlA-YRo Podcast audio: In this episode of the Ayn Rand Institute podcast, Agustina Vergara Cid interviews Josh Windham, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, about the Trump administration's immigration policy and its violations of constitutional rights. Topics include: The Garcia Venegas case; Arbitrary “mass deportations”; Kavanaugh on permissible profiling; Qualified immunity; DHS' denial of reality; Precedent for current enforcement; American principles betrayed; Standing up to authoritarianism. This episode was recorded on December 2, 2025, and posted on December 4, 2025. Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Watch archived podcasts here. Image credits: Police: Octavio Jones / AFP / via Getty Images; Constitution: Tetra Images / via Getty Images

*Trigger Warning: SA and general depravity*A dive into some of the 20,000 Epstein emails and texts that were released by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on November 12, 2025. They show convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein having lively conversations with a multitude of pathetic men. In this pod, we dive into the subject matter of those conversations and explain who those men are/were. From strategizing about Woody Allen's defense against revived sexual abuse allegations from his daughter (not the one he married), to making light of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, to advising married men in their quests to sleep with other women, the emails reveal glimpses of a perverted web of connections. Some of the most chilling messages are between Epstein and Steve Bannon discussing Russia, Hitler, the middle east, meetings that influenced Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation, and their consequent anticipation to overturn the Chevron case. Other Epstein buddies mentioned include Larry Summers, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz, Larry Krauss, and Tom Barrack. All opinions are personal and not representative of any outside company, person, or agenda. This podcast is hosted by a United States citizen, born and raised in a military family that is proud of this country's commitment to free speech. Information shared is cited via published articles, legal documents, press releases, government websites, executive orders, public videos, news reports, and/or direct quotes and statements, and all may be paraphrased for brevity and presented in layman's terms.Find your representatives at USA.GOV and/or the "5 Calls" app and contact them, often. “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” - James BaldwinWanna support this independent pod? Links below:BuyMeACoffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/BBDBVenmo @TYBBDB Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

"Is opportunity really always there—or do you have to be listening for it to knock?" That's the question Kent Hance poses as he opens this episode, setting the stage for a journey through Texas legends, political intrigue, and stories of resilience that only the best storyteller in Texas can deliver. In this episode, Kent Hance shares unforgettable tales from his time in the Lone Star State, weaving together personal anecdotes and historical insights. Listeners will meet characters like Fastball Walker, whose nickname outlived his real name, and CQ Brown, the first African American to head a branch of the U.S. military, whose rise through the ranks was marked by bipartisan respect and a unanimous Senate confirmation vote. Hance dives deep into the complexities of political appointments, revealing the behind-the-scenes battles between the White House and the Senate, and the personal toll these processes take. He reflects on the Supreme Court nomination wars, the brutal Kavanaugh hearings, and the shifting landscape of American politics. Notable moments include Hance's recollection of attending a state dinner with President Reagan and Anwar Sadat, and his friendship with the Crown Prince of Iran during his flying lessons at Texas Tech. Memorable quotes abound, such as: "Opportunity's always there. You gotta be listening for it to knock." "You can take a bad situation and make it something that's really positive." "LBJ will twist your arm so badly to get you to vote for something that you don't realize it didn't break your arm, it ruins your career." Themes of perseverance, the power of reputation, and the impact of political decisions on everyday lives run throughout the episode. Hance's storytelling brings history to life, making listeners feel as if they're right there in the room with presidents, generals, and Texas legends. Call-to-Action If you enjoyed these stories and insights, don't forget to subscribe to "Kent Hance, The Best Storyteller in Texas." Leave a review, share the episode with friends, and help us keep these incredible tales alive. Your support helps us bring more Texas-sized stories to your ears!  

Kate and Leah run through the latest legal news, including updates on the SNAP benefits case, the email dump that revealed Jeffrey Epstein's deep ties to the establishment, and the political persecution of Representative LaMonica McIver. Then they catch up on the past couple weeks of oral arguments at the Supreme Court, which featured bad signs for a prisoner seeking damages after a flagrant violation of his religious rights, some relaxing detours into civil procedure, and Brett Kavanaugh's deeply felt sense of injustice over…lawsuits against military contractors.Favorite Things:Leah: Broken Country, Clare Leslie Hall; Wild Dark Shore, Charlotte McConaghy; First Lie Wins; Dopamine, Robyn; Joyce Carol Oates on X; In Matt Gaetz Scandal, Circumstances Left Teen Vulnerable to Exploitation, Michael S. Schmidt (NYT)Kate: The Preventionist (Serial, NYT); Everybody Scream, Florence + The Machine; The Long Christmas Dinner, Symphony Space; A Year On From Trump's Victory, Resistance Is Everywhere, Rebecca Solnit (Guardian) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Kristen Kavanaugh is the author of Courage Over Fear and the founder of The Agency Initiative, working to connect people's work with meaning in alignment with their values. Previously, she was the vice chair of the Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity & Inclusion and the senior director of inclusion, talent & learning at Tesla. Here are my key takeaways: Values Dissonance Drives Talent Away: The conflict between personal values and the actions or culture of a company—especially at the leadership level—causes significant personal distress and ultimately leads to attrition. Kavanaugh described experiencing anxiety and physical symptoms, including panic attacks, that her body was trying to communicate to her before she left her role at Tesla. She emphasized that listening to those internal signals is crucial and that her health immediately improved once she made the decision to leave the toxic environment. For organizations, this highlights that failing to align with and uphold core values will physically and mentally harm employees, particularly those with less privilege, leading to the loss of valuable talent. Courageous Leadership and Psychological Safety are Key to DEI Success: DEI work thrives when leadership models courage and takes a clear stand on inclusion. Kavanaugh, who led the DEI team, noted that when the CEO began making public statements that were antithetical to the work they were doing, it caused deep pain and was the "start of the unravelling" of DEI at the company. This demonstrated that leadership's visible choice of "courage over fear"—especially by those with power and privilege (the "decision calculus" factor)—is necessary to foster a culture where all employees, particularly underrepresented groups, feel safe and valued enough to stay. Retention and Growth is Built on Small, Consistent Acts of Agency (The 5% Approach): The concept of the "Agency Loop" highlights that a healthy professional life is a cycle of authenticity, intentional decision-making, and growth. The key to starting and sustaining this cycle is the "5% more courageous approach," which breaks down intimidating acts of courage into small, manageable steps. For workplace retention, this means that cultural change and a sense of agency aren't just about massive, high-risk confrontations; they are built through everyday choices, such as a manager creating space for honest dialogue or an employee simply dressing in a way that feels authentic to them. These small, consistent actions compound over time to build resilience and a stronger, more authentic leader and employee. Follow Kristen at https://www.courageoverfearbook.com/.

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

The California Supreme Court's long-awaited "Taking Offense" decision on gender pronouns in elder care facilities introduces a new “captive audience” exception to the First Amendment. Tim worries this new judicial carve out may creep to other forums; Jeff is unperturbed. Tim also shares insights from the Federalist Society National Conference, before examining a significant appellate-fee ruling.Taking Offense v. State (Cal., Nov. 6, 2025, No. S270535) **holds that advocacy groups lack taxpayer standing under CCP §526a to challenge state laws, but still issued 100+ pages addressing the merits through a "captive audience" framework.Captive audience concerns: Tim highlights potential "mission creep" with a “captive audience” rationale, potentially extending beyond elder care facilities to courthouses, government offices, and other venues where First Amendment protections could be weakened.“Bloodthirsty originalism”: From the Federalist Society conference, Judge Bumatay advocated less deference to stare decisis in favor of constitutional fidelity, while Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh addressed courage and civility in legal practice.Discovery fee windfall: In Baer v. Tedder, the court authorized recovery of $113,000 in appellate attorney fees for successfully defending a $10,000 discovery sanction, creating economics similar to anti-SLAPP appeals.AI arbitration arrives: The American Arbitration Association announced a pilot program offering AI resolution of construction disputes with human oversight, signaling that AI's impact on legal practice may be just "a couple of years away" rather than decades.Oral argument mastery: Federal Circuit judges advised narrowing issues to increase credibility, welcoming judicial interruptions as opportunities, and viewing argument time as the court's time for conversation rather than presentation.Tune in for practical insights on appellate strategy, the evolving legal landscape, and how to prepare for significant changes in legal practice in the coming years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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