Podcast appearances and mentions of justice kennedy

Why is the Supreme Court making some of its most impactful decisions behind closed doors? In this episode, Robin Frazer Clark and Lester Tate welcome Professor Stephen Vladeck, author of the bestselling book The Shadow Docket, to discuss the rise of stealth rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. Learn why unsigned and unexplained decisions—affecting everything from immigration to abortion—are becoming more common and why every American should be paying attention.

The Destiny's Child of constitutional law (aka Strict Scrutiny) is back on Getting Curious to help us digest and dissect all the wack-a-doodle nonsense that is: Project 2025. Leah Litman & Kate Shaw from the hit podcast Strict Scrutiny sat down with JVN to really parse out the MAGA manifesto. We're talking all about Project 2025's hallmark proposals, the key players involved, as well as tossing in some Supreme Court, Alito/Thomas Updates for good measure. Leah Litman is an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. She clerked for Judge Sutton on the Sixth Circuit and Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Leah researches and writes about constitutional law and federal courts. She also maintains an active pro bono practice (and she loves reality television). Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in NYC. She teaches Constitutional Law, Legislation, Administrative Law, and a seminar on the Supreme Court, and writes about executive power, the law of democracy, and reproductive rights and justice. Before becoming a law professor she worked in the Obama White House Counsel's Office, and before that was a clerk to Justice Stevens and Judge Posner. You can follow Strict Scrutiny on Twitter @StrictScrutiny_ and on Instagram @strictscrutinypodcast. For more information, check out crooked.com. Leah is on Twitter @LeahLitman and Instagram @profleahlitman. Kate is on Twitter @Kateashaw1 and Instagram @kateashaw. Follow us on Instagram @CuriousWithJVN to join the conversation. Jonathan is on Instagram @JVN. Our senior producer is Chris McClure. Our editor & engineer is Nathanael McClure. Production support from Julie Carrillo, Anne Currie, and Chad Hall. Our theme music is “Freak” by QUIÑ; for more, head to TheQuinCat.com. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Considering where I grew up, I couldn't help but reflect on the evolution of the American Dream, its impact on my life, and its varied resonance within the black community. From the Bronx to the bench, the Honorable Justice Tanya R. Kennedy joins me to share her inspiring climb to the judiciary from a single-parent household. Adding to our generational tapestry, dynamic entrepreneur Imani Blair illuminates the highs and lows of her eclectic career pursuits, from real estate gambles to the creative hustle of podcasting and music. Together, we dissect the layers of ambition and happiness, examining the changing face of success and fulfillment.   The conversation turns to the financial tightrope many of us walk. Imani's tales of her sporadic, yet substantial, freelance income injects a dose of reality into the dreams of those chasing non-traditional career paths. Amidst this, we underscore the paramount importance of financial literacy and proactive retirement planning, drawing on Justice Kennedy's wisdom of long-term professional commitment and the less discussed significance of Associate programs.   To cap off our journey, we navigate the transformative rivers of education and career decisions. My personal hurdles – from the sting of academic expulsion due to financial barriers to carving a space for myself as a minority in media – contrast Imani's flexible leap from aspiring recording artist to podcasting success, offering an honest look at the shifting educational landscape. We question the future of higher education in a world where acquired skills are rapidly overriding degrees, and look ahead to how the evolving job market and generational perspectives on work-life balance are reshaping what we strive for and how we get there.  RATE, REVIEW, AND FOLLOW ON APPLE PODCAST ‌

It has been said that American-style split sovereignty provides the people a “double security” for their liberties. And a distinct security too: where the Framers’ primary restraint on the avarice of the United States was the enumeration of its powers, each state is omnipotent and yet typically bound by a thicker conception of the proper ends of government. But these separate sovereigns interact in unique and sometimes puzzling ways that leave the state of the vertical separation of powers in flux. And given that “split[ting] the atom of sovereignty,” as Justice Kennedy characterized it in US Term Limits v. Thornton, is a uniquely American contribution, is it really necessary to secure the people’s liberty?FeaturingProf. Maureen Brady, Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law and Deputy Dean, Harvard Law SchoolHon. Sarah K. Campbell, Justice, Tennessee Supreme CourtHon. James E. Tierney, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School and former Attorney General, MaineProf. Ernest A. Young, Alston & Bird Distinguished Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

What's better than one constitutional law expert? THREE! This spring we had the honor of speaking with Professor Melissa Murray about the Supreme Court's recent term. Now she's back, with her brilliant Strict Scrutiny co-hosts, Professors Leah Litman and Kate Shaw. They join Jonathan to discuss WTF is going on with the Supreme Court these days—from Clarence Thomas' luxury vacations to what the nation's highest court has in store for us this fall. Plus, an epic round of judicial-themed F*ck, Marry, Kill… You can follow Strict Scrutiny on Twitter @StrictScrutiny_ and on Instagram @strictscrutinypodcast. For more information, check out crooked.com. Melissa is on Twitter and Instagram @profmmurray. Leah is on Twitter @LeahLitman and Instagram @profleahlitman. Kate is on Twitter @Kateashaw1 and Instagram @kateashaw. Melissa Murray is a Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, where she teaches constitutional law, family law, criminal law, and reproductive rights and justice and writes about the legal regulation of intimate life. Melissa clerked for Judge Stefan Underhill on the District of Connecticut and for Justice Sotomayor when she served on the Second Circuit. When she's not reading the SCOTUS tea leaves, she's practicing the violin, reading People magazine, and keeping up with Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex. Leah Litman is an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. She clerked for Judge Sutton on the Sixth Circuit and Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Leah researches and writes about constitutional law and federal courts. She also maintains an active pro bono practice (and she loves reality television). Kate Shaw is a Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in NYC. She teaches Constitutional Law, Legislation, Administrative Law, and a seminar on the Supreme Court, and writes about executive power, the law of democracy, and reproductive rights and justice. Before becoming a law professor she worked in the Obama White House Counsel's Office, and before that was a clerk to Justice Stevens and Judge Posner. Follow us on Instagram @CuriousWithJVN to join the conversation. Jonathan is on Instagram @JVN. Transcripts for each episode are available at JonathanVanNess.com. Find books from Getting Curious guests at bookshop.org/shop/curiouswithjvn. Our executive producer is Erica Getto. Our producer is Chris McClure. Our associate producer is Allison Weiss. Our engineer is Nathanael McClure. Production support from Julie Carrillo, Samantha Martinez, and Anne Currie. Our theme music is “Freak” by QUIÑ; for more, head to TheQuinCat.com. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week is the anniversary of two dark and pivotal cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. In June 2013, the high court ruled in United States v. Windsor that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violated Due Process. This essentially made the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges judgment, which redefined millennia of law on marriage, inevitable.  Justice Anthony Kennedy unwittingly defined our chaotic age in the majority opinion for Obergefell when he declared, “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”  This idea—that people can freely craft their identity independent from nature, science, and reality—is behind so much of the moral confusion of the last few years. But it has certainly not led to the “liberty” that Justice Kennedy promised. This is the opportunity for Christians to point not only to an abstract moral position, but to reality itself and to the God who made it. 

It's decision season 2023, and in the next few weeks, we can expect rulings on everything from affirmative action to gerrymandering to gay rights and student debt relief. The Supreme Court saves all its decisions to release in May-June, and we'll take you through what we're predicting on a spectrum from "meh" to awful when it comes to this cycle. In the words of Justice Kennedy, after every case, the Supreme Court can be seen as “partisan” or a group of “namby pambies.” Personally, I predict they'll be both. But we'll see how it turns out with my 2023 Supreme Court Bingo card. (This episode recaps all the major issues for cases in the last year). And for the future, make sure to tune in at 10am Eastern Thursday mornings as we live-stream the Supreme Court's decision release days! They release new verdicts every 10 minutes. It's a lot to get through and we'd love your help speed reading. Like what you're listening to? Don't forget to rate our podcast, it helps us out so much in the algorithm! And of course, if you're interested in merch, head on our to the Two Balls, One Court merch store. Send us an email if you'd like a discount :)

Professor Richard Re stops by Supreme Myths to discuss whether Dobbs should have been decided more narrowly and his fascinating new Harvard article on personal precedent. We also discussed Justice Kennedy, Judge Posner, and much more.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comGary Feinerman served as a judge for the U.S. District Court or the Northern District of Illinois, with chambers in Chicago, from 2010 to 2022. He also served as the Solicitor General of Illinois, from 2003 until 2007, and as a law clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. In our interview, we discussed why he left the bench, what it was like to clerk for Justice Kennedy alongside two future Supreme Court justices, his most noteworthy case from his time on the bench, how he worked his magic as a Supreme Court “feeder judge,” and the type of practice he plans to build at Latham & Watkins.

Imani and Jess are being upfront—and admitting they got something wrong. It's about the 2020 Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the justices held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects trans and gay employees at the workplace.Upon reflection, it turns out that the Bostock opinion is one giant goose egg—and Justice Neil Gorsuch is to blame. As Jess says in the episode, "He managed to write the decision and tailor it so narrowly that it left open room for future conservative fuckery."That moment has arrived.Mentioned in this episode:Thanks a Lot, Justice Kennedy. How Screwed Are We Now?Idaho Conservatives Want to Ban Drag PerformancesRewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means that Boom! Lawyered is only made possible by the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.And sign up for The Fallout, a weekly newsletter written by Jess that's exclusively dedicated to covering every aspect of this unprecedented moment.

Imani and Jess are being upfront—and admitting they got something wrong. It's about the 2020 Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the justices held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects trans and gay employees at the workplace.Upon reflection, it turns out that the Bostock opinion is one giant goose egg—and Justice Neil Gorsuch is to blame. As Jess says in the episode, "He managed to write the decision and tailor it so narrowly that it left open room for future conservative fuckery."That moment has arrived.Mentioned in this episode:Thanks a Lot, Justice Kennedy. How Screwed Are We Now?Idaho Conservatives Want to Ban Drag PerformancesRewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means that Boom! Lawyered is only made possible by the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.And sign up for The Fallout, a weekly newsletter written by Jess that's exclusively dedicated to covering every aspect of this unprecedented moment.

Petitioners Michael and Chantell Sackett own a vacant lot in a mostly built-out residential subdivision near Priest Lake, Idaho. The lot has no surface water connection to any body of water. In April, 2007, with local permits in hand, the Sacketts began building a family home. But later that year, Respondent Environmental Protection Agency sent them an administrative compliance order determining that their home construction violated the Clean Water Act because their lot contains wetlands that qualify as regulated "navigable waters." In Rapanos v. United States, 54 7 U.S. 715 (2006), the Court held that the Clean Water Act does not regulate all wetlands, but no opinion explaining why that is so garnered a majority of the Court. A plurality opinion authored by Justice Scalia and joined by three other Justices argued that only those wetlands that have a continuous surface water connection to regulated waters may themselves be regulated. A concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy advanced a different and much broader test, allowing for regulation of wetlands regardless of any surface connection, so long as the wetlands bear an (undefined) "significant nexus" with traditional navigable waters. Below, the Ninth Circuit employed Justice Kennedy's "significant nexus" test to uphold EPA's authority over the Sacketts' homesite. The question presented is: Should Rapanos be revisited to adopt the plurality's test for wetlands jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act? https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-454.html

Justin Bourgoyne and I enjoy a little sip and solve as we discuss one of today's increasingly challenging topics for people with differing views — different, that is, from the left!  If the dems would simply stop censoring people they disagree with, then everything would be just fine.  In my opinion, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter have replaced traditional public forums.  They are not really private businesses at this point, they are more of a public utility.   Justice Kennedy referred to social media as, “the modern public square”.  He's not wrong.  Unfortunately, the left polices all of the social media and they want to eliminate two schools of thought as it relates to the government.  It's a totalitarian attitude that has been around as long as humanity has existed.  Make no mistake, the First Amendment is under fire and must be protected at all costs.   Censor this bitches!Produced By:  Fadi GattoussiBBOS Website:   Author, Dawn BurtsPlease follow Boobs, Booze and Other Stuff on.....SpotifyApple PodcastsInstagramTik TokYouTubeiHeartSupport the show

Learn more about Justice Kennedy

Regular listeners to the weekly Breakpoint This Week podcast know that my co-host Maria and I are fans of the reality competition show Alone. Ten wilderness experts are dropped in the middle of nowhere, usually a place that is cold and full of bears, forced to fend for themselves. Whoever stays the longest wins.   In the latest season, a military veteran with strong survival skills and extensive experience overseas seemed poised to win. Instead, he called it quits just a few weeks in. In an interview afterwards, he explained, “When I was in the military and separated from family, I didn't have a choice. Out here... I had that opportunity to get on the radio or the phone and say, ‘Hey, I'm going to go back to where I'm comfortable.'” In other words, having the choice to go home made staying much harder.  According to conventional wisdom, at least the kind accepted in this cultural moment, the opposite should have been true. More control and more choices are supposed to bring easier and more satisfying lives.  That misconception is, in fact, a feature of life since modernism. For most of human history, humans held no illusions of being masters of their own fate. Writing back in 1976, American sociologist Peter Berger identified what changed, especially for Westerners. Because of the dramatic progress brought by science and technology, humans in the modern period began to believe that the world would eventually be fully understood. And if understood, it could also be mastered, as well.  “What previously was experienced as fate now becomes an arena of choices,” Berger wrote. “In principle, there is the assumption that all human problems can be converted into technical problems… the world becomes ever more ‘makeable.'”  A mark of our late postmodern era is the obsession with having choices. The higher the stakes, the more acute is the illusion of freedom. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy described this impulse in his now overturned Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, when he wrote that “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” In his view, the “freedom of choice” extends to even choosing what is real. Is it any wonder that people now believe that choice extends beyond sexual behavior to sexual identity?  However, if happiness truly comes from the control made possible through infinite choices and the ability to “make the world,” why did the military officer competing on Alone find the opposite to be true? Why did his freedom of choice turn out to be too much of a burden? Why do so many studies show that we are less happy than ever?  The postmodern assertion that we can “make the world” exploits a weakness inherent to our fallen humanness and especially acute today. We struggle to delay gratification. We might fool ourselves into thinking that we can, in fact, define our existence or choose our gender. We may think our decision about whether to stay married or whether to bring an unborn child to birth is based on deep reflections. However, because we can, we tend to choose comfort now at the expense of flourishing later. If we have the option, we call the producers and tap out.   Justice Kennedy was wrong. No matter how many choices we have, we cannot remake the world. Everywhere we turn, we butt up against the limits of creation. According to a Christian worldview, this is actually good news. God created the world with limits: physical and moral laws, bodies, certain geographic locations and times in history, and not other ones. He gives us specific parents and siblings and children, whose specific needs constantly impose limits on our choices.   Even if, in modernity and postmodernity, such limits are anathema, to be resisted and fought against with all the science and technology we can muster, true freedom is found by recognizing and resting in God's good limits, both physical and moral. If God is good, then the limits He imposes are not burdens. They're blessings.

In the 2015 majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, a decision that overruled laws in dozens of states and imposed same sex “marriage” on the United States, Justice Anthony Kennedy rightly described marriage as an institution that is fundamental to society, that protects and ensures the well-being of children, and that is essential for a flourishing society. To withhold this institution from same-sex couples, Kennedy then wrongly concluded, would be to violate their dignity and disrespect their autonomy, especially the autonomy reflected in their intimate unions. What went missing in this opinion was a definition of what marriage is, and therefore why it is such an irreplaceable institution.  In the end, Kennedy's decision failed in the same way that Matt Walsh's new documentary What Is a Woman? reveals that transgender ideology fails. Repeatedly, advocates Walsh interviewed echoed the same refrain, that a woman is “anyone who identifies as a woman.” However, when pressed further and asked, “but what are they identifying as?” they had no answer. In the same way, under Kennedy's reasoning, any relational arrangement we identify as marriage is marriage and warrants being included in the institution, even if it lacks the necessary ingredients that make marriage what it is. It is like saying, “The Rockefellers are rich, so I'm going to change my name to Rockefeller so I can be rich.”   Of course, this is not how reality works. Instead, Kennedy resorts to identifying marriage as an ever-evolving institution. In other words, marriage is not baked into reality like gravity. Instead, it is more like a speed limit, a social construct that changes as society changes.  If marriage is indeed just a product of abstract progress, untethered from any created intent or design, it suffers the same moral quandary as naturalistic evolution. There is no way to control what creature comes next, or to know, as Justice Kennedy assured us, that what followed would be better than what came before (or even if it will be good). There is no guarantee that marriage will remain an institution fundamental to society, that protects and ensures the well-being of children and contributes to human flourishing.  In fact, since Obergefell was decided, the rights of children to know their mom and dad, and to have their minds, bodies, futures, and most important relationships protected, have been replaced by the rights of adults to pursue their own desires and happiness. Justice Kennedy, it seems, has gotten his wish. Marriage has indeed evolved, or at least our conception of it has, but not for the better. Throughout human history, marriage was understood, including in law, to be a sexually complementary union, ordered toward procreation. No-fault divorce and now more fully same-sex “marriage” redefined it as an institution ordered only toward the vagaries of adult happiness.  Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives proposed the wrongly named “Respect for Marriage Act.” If it passes the Senate, this bill will result in a further stage of the legal evolution of marriage. When Obergefell was decided, the “T” had not yet taken over the ever-growing acronym of sexual identity preferences. The Respect for Marriage Act would not only encode Obergefell, but it would also further the reinvention of marriage in law. In effect, marriage would evolve into a genderless institution, not only unbound from its essential connection to children and sexual difference but to any embodied realities whatsoever. In other words, there would be no legal obstacle to extending marriage beyond couples to relationships consisting of multiple partners.   Even worse, redefining marriage not only redefines the definition of “spouse” but also “parent.” Parenting should be a sacrificial investment in future generations, but redefining marriage in this way has made it a self-determined right of getting “what we want.” Children have always borne the brunt of the worst ideas of the sexual revolution, especially when combined with new reproductive technologies. Rather than the fruit of a loving union, children are now increasingly treated as products of casually partnered consumers.  Further, if the Respect for Marriage Act becomes law, the worst parts of the Obergefell decision would be established in law in a way that abortion was not under Roe v. Wade. Like Roe, Obergefell was an act of judicial overreach. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent, “[T]his Court is not a legislature…. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be…. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as constitutional law…. The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment.”   In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy claimed that the decision would not affect people of conscience, especially “religious institutions and people.” That has proven to be flatly wrong. The Respect for Marriage Act contains no conscience protections.  Despite their party platform which claims a commitment to Constitutional originalism and religious freedom, this bill could find support from 10 Republican Senators. If it does, it will pass the Senate and become law. Please, if you live in a state with a Republican Senator who has not indicated he or she will oppose this bill, contact them today and tell them to do so. 

O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake is read by Casey Mattox, the vice president for legal and judicial strategy at Americans for Prosperity. Legal Question: Whether government retaliation against a contractor or regular provider of services for the exercise of rights of political association or allegiance violates the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. Action: The Court found that the independent contractor relationship between O'Hare and the City was sufficiently close to an employer-employee relationship to justify the recognition of a First Amendment right.  Mr. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, at 00:35 This opinion's citations have been edited down for ease of listening. For more information, visit our explanation. For more on O'Hare, visit FIRE's First Amendment Library. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud. Free Speech Out Loud is a project of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

In #10 Rod and Kale discuss the normalization of cultural nihilism and the capture of the modes of production. We discuss:  -The California Enshrinement of Throuples: The Whale And The Net | The American Conservative -The capture of the Civil Rights movement and Justice Kennedy's infamous establishment on personal definition of destiny -Christopher Caldwell's The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties: Caldwell, Christopher: 9781501106897: Amazon.com: Books -E.J. Dionne's claim that Biden has rolled back the culture war: Opinion | Biden is rolling back the culture war. The country should thank him. - The Washington Post -Pillar discussion about +Wuerl, +Gregory, and +Tobin and the ongoing rot of church corruption: The Pillar (pillarcatholic.com) (a no-brainer sub) -Bari Weiss's Woke Cult comes to your favorite Prep Schools: The Miseducation of America's Elites | City Journal (city-journal.org)

    Justice Kennedy's First Priority Was the First Amendment - RealClearPolitics http://www.ala.org/aboutala/intellectual-freedom-quotes SJW's and Freedom of Thought/Speech/Expression https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/157/hudson-justice-anthony-kennedy-made-his-mark-on-first-amendment-jurisprudence NPR Reports on FB and Twitter Blocking NY Post "Laptop From Hell" Story NY Post - Oldest Paper in America - Locked Out of Twitter July 2019 New Yorker Article on Biden Campaign's "Hunter" Problem.... EVEN [...]

This has been a landmark year for Supreme Court rulings already. In one week we got the protections of LGBT people at work and a rejection of Trump desire to end DACA, protecting immigrants!! What other decisions were made by the court this year and what do they mean for future jurisprudence? What do the majority opinions of the two stellar judgments teach us about Chief Justice John Roberts? Is he the new Justice Kennedy? Do we have cause to be optimistic about the future of the court? Ben Feuer, famed appellate lawyer and legal scholar, is coming to Manny's to discuss and lay it all out for us. About Ben Feuer: Ben Feuer is the chairman of the California Appellate Law Group. Deemed one of the “top appellate litigators in California” by a national news network, Ben regularly represents large and small businesses in bet-the-company commercial appeals in the California appellate courts and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He also represents individuals involved in prosecuting and defending civil appeals ranging from major real estate controversies to multimillion-dollar tort actions to high-net worth family law disputes to novel questions of constitutional law. Ben has been called an “Elite Boutique Trailblazer” by the National Law Journal, named one of the “Top 40 Lawyers Under 40” in California by the Daily Journal, included on Benchmark Litigation‘s “40 & Under Hot List,” and awarded the “Outstanding Barrister” prize by the Bar Association of San Francisco. He has been chosen as a SuperLawyer “Rising Star” for the field of appellate law nine times. Ben is co-chair of the Appellate Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco, and has moderated and spoken on dozens of panels with appellate judges, practitioners, and professors on topics related to appellate law and practice. He is also a frequent author of articles on appellate practice and constitutional law topics, and his writing has appeared in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the National Law Journal, as well as The Recorder, The Daily Journal, and Corporate Counsel. He also often appears on KGO Radio, Voice of America, and in the Daily Journal‘s podcasts to discuss upcoming appellate issues, Supreme Court cases, and constitutional law. You can read most of Ben's articles and listen to recordings of many of his broadcasts by clicking here. Ben previously served as an Appellate Lawyer Representative to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, one of a handful of attorneys from across the court's 11-state jurisdiction personally selected for the role by the court's judges. He also served on the Board of Directors of the Bar Association of San Francisco's Barristers Club and on the advisory board to OneJustice, an organization that supports California legal nonprofit groups. In 2016, the Minority Bar Council of San Francisco presented Ben with its “Unity Award,” for “outstanding commitment to diversity in the legal profession.” Before joining the California Appellate Law Group, Ben served as a law clerk to Judge Carlos Bea of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He also served as of counsel to the San Francisco appellate boutique Eisenberg & Hancock, and practiced with top litigators at the national firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Williams & Connolly. Ben graduated in the top of his class from the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, where he was an editor of the Law Review, argued for the national moot court team, and published an article in the Northwestern Law Review on free speech and election law. He has a bachelor's degree in philosophy from Trinity College in Connecticut.

According to Pew Research, fewer and fewer American adults have a working historical knowledge of the Holocaust. While most of us have general knowledge about the time period, more than half do not know how many Jews were killed or how Hitler came to power. We'd be foolish to not connect our growing ignorance of history with the rise of anti-Semitism that we see around the world and even here in the United States. In fact, renowned historian David McCullough recently admitted that the connection between our historical forgetfulness and current events keeps him up at night. Specifically, he said, our leaders “have forgotten about history. They are unaware of the past, and uninterested in how they will be remembered in the future.” To be clear, the amnesia we see in our leaders is the fruit of the problem, not the root. The root, as McCullough expressed at the most recent National Book Festival, lies in deeper structural realities, especially the lack of attention given to history in American schools. “Eighty percent of our colleges don't require history courses,” McCullough lamented, before adding, “That's wrong.” McCullough is right. It is wrong. And dangerous. As philosopher George Santayana famously put it, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  Or as Mark Twain (probably) said, “History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” Unfortunately, we don't seem very committed to remembering the past, as is obvious from how very committed we are to rejecting it, especially anything that smacks of traditional morality. G.K. Chesterton called tradition “the democracy of the dead,” and wisely advised that “Before you remove a fence, you should ask why it is there in the first place.” Though our challenges aren't identical to those faced by previous societies, they are similar; in fact, they're essentially variations of the same basic themes: What does it mean to be just? Who is one of us? What do we owe our neighbor? What obligation do we have towards those different from us?  What's right and wrong, and who decides? And, even if the challenges we face have changed, human nature hasn't. We may believe we're smarter and better and, as Justice Kennedy liked to say, “more morally evolved” than our forebears, but that's only our prejudice speaking, a version of what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery.”  On the other hand, paying attention to history is a way to acknowledge that our forebears may have learned something about human nature, even if they learned it the hard way. As I said in a recent commentary on Holocaust Remembrance Day, we are all capable of the evil and horror on display at places like Auschwitz. A proper knowledge of history and a proper understanding of human fallenness that history gives us, is a potent antidote to protect us from our own potential. McCullough offered another important reason for knowing history, one that echoes both Chesterton and Chuck Colson: Knowing history cultivates a sense of gratitude. We are the beneficiaries of those who came before us. As Isaac Newton said, “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” And he was Isaac Newton! Even beyond the crisis of our moment and the cultivation of gratitude, Christians ought appreciate history because biblical religion is an historical faith. The scriptures tell the story of God's actions, not in a “Once upon a time, far, far away” realm of imagination or mystery, but within human history. Since the Exodus, God's people have made remembering and reciting God's historical acts a central part of life and worship. In fact, as many have said, the entire Old Testament can be summarized with the word “Remember!” Of course, Christians believe that same commandment is not only repeated but also fulfilled by Jesus, when He said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” History teaches us about ourselves, helps us avoid personal and cultural blind spots, reveals the debt we owe to the past, and reminds us of things essential to know about God, as He is revealed to us in Scripture. What other reasons could we need?

Join weDignify's 7 Days to Living Pro-Life challenge! Have you ever been fearful of what someone might think of you because of your pro-life beliefs? Have you ever shied away from disagreeing with someone because you don't want them to think you hate them? Today, weDignify's Executive Director, Kevin Grillot, is guest-hosting to discuss why conflict is good and how to overcome these thoughts to speak Truth with guest Rich Baker of Mauck & Baker in Chicago. Additional information: Lawyers for Jesus - link Mauck and Baker - link Justice Kennedy's “Mystery of Life” passage from Planned Parenthood vs Casey - link  

Just in time for the 4th of July, America is showing its true colors- and it's alt-white. But first! James and I share our origin stories- from what motivated us to become the dope lawyers we are today, to the trials and tribulations we overcame to get here. The Supremes ended their farewell tour with the somewhat expected Janus decision, an equally disappointing decision in Trump v. Hawaii, and the facepalm-worthy announcement of Justice Kennedy's retirement. TBD on the newest member of the group. We're probably livin' in our last days. So hit play, kick off your shoes, and relax your feet- we won't be Xscaping this anytime soon. Listen to us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher,Google Play, and CastBox. Got a legal(ish) question you want to ask, or a topic you want us to cover? Hit us up at legalishpodcast@gmail.com (this doesn't create an attorney/client relationship with either of us). Follow Bianca on Instagram: @brazenlawyer and Twitter: @brazenlawyer and visitwww.brazenlawyer.comfor more information about her work. Follow James on Twitter: @lawsforwords and visit http://www.jamestjonesesq.com/ for more information about him. Theme music from Phill E. Flames

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump's nominee to replace Justice Kennedy, has been faced with deeply partisan support and pushback throughout Congress's confirmation hearings. This is not the first time we've witnessed partisan action in regards to the judicial branch, however, the role of partisanship seems to be extending beyond the nominee process to within the court's decisions. Have party lines divided the U.S. Supreme Court? A Youth Forum panel explains.

Everett Piper delves into a ruling made by outgoing Justice Kennedy that reveals a dangerous philosophy in our modern culture. Fortunately, his prospective replacement, Judge Kavanaugh, seems to have a different worldview.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

President Ronald Reagan appointed two men for the Supreme Court in 1987. The first, Robert Bork, was rejected by the Senate by a 42 to 58 margin for his conservative views on personal privacy and the court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision that protects access to legal abortion. Reagan's second nominee, Robert Kennedy, was confirmed by a 98-0 majority. After a 30-year tenure on the bench, Justice Kennedy set off a firestorm in Washington, DC last month when he announced he was retiring from his post where he was the Supreme Court justice long considered the “swing vote” by observers on both sides. With President Donald Trump announcing former Kennedy clerk Brett Kavanaugh as his judicial nominee on Monday, the highest court in the land appears poised to make a major swing to the right, that is, if he can get confirmed. On this week's TrumpWatch, Mark Walsh of SCOTUSblog considers which type of candidate Kavanaugh is.

Noah Feldman, Harvard Law professor and Bloomberg Opinion columnist, on Justice Kennedy's legacy and what to expect from a newly shaped Supreme Court. Clay Lowery, Managing Director at Rock Creek Global Advisors and former Assistant Secretary for International Affairs at the US Treasury Department, on how businesses are reacting to trade war threats.Felix Gillette, writer for Bloomberg Businessweek, on Nintendo's quest to stay alive. Michael Rea, pharmacist, founder and CEO of Rx Savings Solutions, on how drug pricing and the pharmacy landscape will be impacted by Amazon buying PillPack. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

The complicated immigration issue. Who will Trump pick to replace Justice Kennedy? A drink gets thrown in the face of a Trump supporter. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comFollow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuckSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Townhall Review – July 7, 2018 Hugh Hewitt and Tom McCabe, CEO of the Freedom Foundation, discuss the U. S. Supreme Court decision about unions in the public sector. Hugh Hewitt and Politico’s Jake Sherman look at how the Senate vote might decide on the next U. S. Supreme Court justice to fill Justice Kennedy's seat. Michael Medved examines the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision to vacate the lower court’s decision on Arlene’s Flowers. Michael Medved talks about the New York primary victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Larry Elder talks with Professor John Eastman about congressional filibustering. Michael Medved and Arthur Brooks explain what happens when we listen to each other across political divides. Listen to find out what Larry Elder's epiphany concerning Nancy Pelosi is all about.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christian Outlook – July 7, 2018 Don Kroah talks with Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel about President Trump’s possible Supreme Court nominee candidates to replace Justice Kennedy. Don Kroah and Paul Kengor from Grove City College take a look at the history of Supreme Court nominations. Albert Mohler looks at a piece on transgenderism in the Atlantic magazine. Craig Roberts and Dennis Rainey offer up tips for parents in our hyper-sexualized world. Don Kroah interviews Steven Mosher, author and China expert, about why we should not overlook the communist nature of the Chinese regime. Bob Burney tells us how we are being lied to about socialism.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Finding Patriotism in Troubled Times What is patriotism to you in the time of Trump? Do you celebrate the country's beauty, abundance, power, or potential? Does the current political climate find you shying away from waving the flag? Wendy Sheridan, Robin Renée, and Mary McGinley work through their thoughts on love of country, aspects of life in the U.S. both positive and painful, and resolve to reclaim the red, white, and blue. The political news discussion at the top of the show includes the federal court ruling to expedite reuniting children and adult family members who have been separated at the border, Sinclair Broadcast Group's encroachment on anti-monopoly rules, Disney's bid to purchase 21st Century Fox, the Janus decision, and the retirement of Justice Kennedy. Mary has an anecdote about how Sarah Huckabee Sanders' being asked to leave The Red Hen restaurant took on a personal twist for her. Amidst the worrisome news, the black women-powered justice system in Fulton, GA is another good reason to celebrate. Everyone takes a moment to share about songs that speak to the American experience. Among the favorites are Aaron Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man," The Cowsill's "Love American Style," and Steve Forbert's "The American in Me." Enjoy the Spotify playlist, "A Leftscape 4th of July - Celebration, Observation, Protest." Listen, follow, share, and have a very happy and safe holiday! Robert Reich: Summer Survival Guide for the Trump Era

Welcome back! The slow days of summer are dragging along, but that won't stop these guys from recording! Jordan is joined by Roger and Quinn for a return of the out-of-the-hat topics. First the guys discuss Donald Trump Jr. slaughtering the word 'lit' (1:20); then they tackle summer television to tackle now that peak tv is over (5:16); the Red Hen's refusal of service to Sarah Huckabee Sanders (10:58); they then talk about new music that has dropped so far this summer (Drake, Kanye, Kid Cudi, Nas) (18:27); NBA Free Agency gets a whirl (25:42); the Anti-IPA movement (40:00); the retirement of Justice Kennedy (49:41); and finally any recommendations that we've streamed lately (58:45). Don't forget to subscribe and rate! 5 stars only!

The Supreme Court wrapped up its term last week with a bombshell announcement about the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy a conservative who served as a swing vote in several key cases. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Episode #4 Supreme is the only way I like my pizza and my courts. King Kunta knows far more about the politics of the legal system, but that has never stopped me from having a good argument. Justice Kennedy has stepped down. And with that put the fate of the legal country firmly in the hands of King Kunta’s arch nemesis. I’m not so sure this is a problem for us considering Reagan put Kennedy in place and look how that turned out for “us”. We discuss the ramifications of the resignation and the pending assignment. Other than that we make a bold prediction on the quality of the Drake album. Don’t forget to vote on today’s Rate The Racism poll. [yop_poll id=1]

Episode #4 Supreme is the only way I like my pizza and my courts. King Kunta knows far more about the politics of the legal system, but that has never stopped me from having a good argument. Justice Kennedy has stepped down. And with that put the fate of the legal country firmly in the hands of King Kunta’s arch nemesis. I’m not so sure this is a problem for us considering Reagan put Kennedy in place and look how that turned out for “us”. We discuss the ramifications of the resignation and the pending assignment. Other than that we make a bold prediction on the quality of the Drake album. Don’t forget to vote on today’s Rate The Racism poll. [yop_poll id=1]

Guest:  Bill Katz, the editor of Urgent Agenda......We will look at the the angry left and their apparent losing battle against Trump.......Trump is winning the immigration debate specially the calls to abolish ICE.......The upcoming Trump-Putin meeting and what does it mean?....Is North Korea already cheating?........Germany and Merkel in trouble.......Don't look now but there is are protests in Iran......Justice Kennedy out and the left goes into hysterical overdrive.....and other stories............   Please check our blog or follow me on Twitter. See Carlos Guedes' schedule!

LaRue and Dr. Sean Hays PhD. discuss David Stringer's not apology, Gosar's attack on the Arizona Republic, Justice Kennedy's retirement and it's repercussions, and not to vote for people who are pro-forced child birth, along with a new installment of Summer School with Phoenix.

Monica Crowley and Eric touch on what the retirement of Justice Kennedy will mean for the Supreme Court as they continue their in-studio discussion.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Political correctness meets "Little House in the prairie"......A shooting in Maryland and the automatic calls against President Trump or gun laws..........Some Democrats want to abolish ICE.....The left in full hysterical mode about replacing Justice Kennedy........Harmon Killebrew 1936-2011.....Joe DiMaggio got # 41 & # 42 in a doubleheader on his way to 56 that summer of 1941...........and others stories............. Please check our blog or follow me on Twitter. Check Carlos Guedes' schedule this week in Dallas    

Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West, who teach the Calling Bullsh** course at UW // Laura Loe Bernstein on rezoning, upzoning, NIMBYs, YIMBYs, and PHIMBYs // Nathan Wilson from KIRO7 on welfare fraud in Washington // Margaret Brennan on replacing Justice Kennedy // Michael Medved's review of Sicario: Day of the Soldado // Sports Insider Danny O'Neil on the M's sweeping Baltimore/ Special Olympics come to Seattle/ ESPN Body Issue

Bowyer explains why Justice Kennedy's retirement is a great opportunity for constitutionalist and originalist conservatives.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tim "The Lawyer" Sandefur makes another appearance on Armstrong & Getty to talk about Justice Kennedy's retirement--what happens next? Plus, Maxine Waters is not awesome--Joe explains why.

A shooting at a newspaper office in Annapolis, MD. Justice Kennedy's retirement should be a big story for the next several months. We're joined by John Dombroski, founder and president of Grand Canyon Planning. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Look... we wanted to have a fun show and make jokes, but the Supreme Court and Justice Kennedy threw a fucking monkeywrench into that plan.  We basically go through the court's rulings and discuss how Kennedy's retirement will adversely affect the country.  We finish with a list of the most wonderful places in America.  AND GO LISTEN TO PODBLOCKED!

Hr 1: SCOTUS Justice Kennedy is retiring and now Chuck Schumer is lecturing Republicans on good behavior. AND... Coach quietly took a knee after every football game to honor a covenant he made with God for 7 yrs without a complaint. He's FIRED. Hr 2: Gregory Wrightstone, geologist and author of "Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn't want you to know", says Al Gore would have you believe that the warming trend we're in is unusual and unprecedented. But if you look back in history far enough, this trend has happened at least 3 other times in history. It's not unusual. Hr 3: First, Trump's travel ban ruled Constitutional. Now, public sector unions can't force non-union employees to pay union "fees". WINNING! AND... Democrats biggest concern is overturning Roe v. Wade. Apparently, abortion is their biggest agenda item. Have you had your healthy dose of reality lately?

Democrats haven't been this honest since they started a war to stop Republicans from freeing their slaves, and we have President Trump to thank! Then, Justice Kennedy retires! What it means for the Court and country. Gavin McInnes joins to discuss the odds of a new civil war. Finally, what Republicans can learn from Elvis on This Day In History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Steffan wraps-up yesterday’s primary results. Then Alan Roach live from the World Cup Games in Russia. Justice Kennedy’s retirement spurs discussion.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Christian Outlook -- December 16, 2017Kevin McCullough invited Jordan Sekulow of the ACLJ to explain the latest regarding Bruce Ohr, an associate deputy attorney general at the Department of Justice, and why the focus needs to be on him. Albert Mohler gives his outcome analysis of the Alabama Senate election with Roy Moore and Doug Jones. Don Kroah turns to David Brog, director of the group "Christians United for Israel" on the announcement of the U.S. embassy being relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Bill Bunkley invited Bruce Hausknecht of Focus on the Family to share his analysis of what he witnessed in the courtroom during the Supreme Court Masterpiece Cake Shop case. John Stonestreet shares with Frank Sontag his insight into the swing vote, Justice Kennedy. Craig Roberts invites Rebecca Hagelin to share how we can protect our kids in a toxic culture as well as other immensely helpful relationship building concepts from her latest book, "30 Ways in 30 Days to Strengthen Your Family." In celebration of the greatest Book, Frank Sontag turns to Hobby Lobby President Steve Green to explain the different compelling facets of the "Museum of the Bible" in Washington, D.C. Lila Rose of "Live Action" explained to Kevin McCullough the depths of curruption found in abortion factory, Planned Parenthood.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, Vashitta and Gabe discuss the effort by ProgressOhio to call on state Supreme Court Justice Sharen Kennedy to recuse herself in the Capital Care Network case out of Toledo. ProgressOhio was joined by 51 different individuals and organizations signing on to the formal complaint, including NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. Justice Kennedy participated in a fundraiser for Greater Toledo Right to Life this March, which many feel impacts her ability to be impartial in the case.

Instead of being the predicted yawner, Supreme Court session ending today has produced its share of blockbuster decisions. We look at today's three, final 5-to 4-rulings and what this year's session might reveal about the future.