Podcast appearances and mentions of justice kennedy

American judge

  • 224PODCASTS
  • 322EPISODES
  • 45mAVG DURATION
  • 1MONTHLY NEW EPISODE
  • Oct 24, 2022LATEST
justice kennedy

POPULARITY

20152016201720182019202020212022


Best podcasts about justice kennedy

Latest podcast episodes about justice kennedy

Boom! Lawyered
Neil Gorsuch Is a Snake—and We Almost Missed It

Boom! Lawyered

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 24, 2022 29:56


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.

We'll Hear Arguments
Neil Gorsuch Is a Snake—and We Almost Missed It

We'll Hear Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 24, 2022 29:56


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.

Boobs, Booze, and Other Stuff
S2, E35 - CENSORSHIP: Not a Subject to be Taken….

Boobs, Booze, and Other Stuff

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 8, 2022 32:22


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

The BreakPoint Podcast
When the Weight of “Choice” Is Too Heavy

The BreakPoint Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 24, 2022 4:15


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.

The BreakPoint Podcast
What Obergefell Got Right and What It Got Very Wrong

The BreakPoint Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 26, 2022 6:06


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. 

Free Speech Out Loud
O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996)

Free Speech Out Loud

Play Episode Listen Later May 10, 2022 23:41


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.

Greg Palast
Strangling of John Lewis Voting Rights Act could be death blow for democracy

Greg Palast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 9, 2021 30:25


These are the only states that would be policed under the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, the requirement to “pre-clear” new, racially biased, voting procedures, such as limitations on early voting: Alabama Georgia Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Texas Virginia Don't get me wrong, the strangling of the John Lewis Act by filibuster, unlike the overhyped For the People Act, could be the death blow to a democratically elected Congress. In 2013, Justice Kennedy said the Voting Rights Act would have been constitutional if it didn't target specific states, a suggestion from New York City which was then under pre-clearance review. While the new list is a rogues gallery of bad actors, there are real dangers in Ohio, Wisconsin, Arizona and Florida, not on the list. The Democratic Party has to grasp that vote suppression is serious in almost every state. Ironically, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema may be the victim of her own obstructionism. Even with its limitations, the John Lewis Act would've been a very powerful weapon. For example, the act would absolutely have prevented Cobb County, Georgia, from closing six of 11 early voting stations, all six in African-American neighborhoods. So what now? While Attorney General Merrick Garland his filed suits against parts of Georgia's new Jim Crow SB 202, action so far is slow, limited, and scatter shot. Learn more: https://www.gregpalast.com/strangling-of-john-lewis-voting-rights-act-could-be-death-blow-for-democratically/ Subscribe to our newsletter: https://www.gregpalast.com/subscribe/

High Heels and Politics
Justice Sharon L. Kennedy - Ohio Supreme Court

High Heels and Politics

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 25, 2021 23:31


Learn more about Justice Kennedy

Notorious:  The Legal Legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Season 2: Episode 5: A Discussion of Ricci v. DeStefano

Notorious: The Legal Legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 17, 2021 44:28


In Season 2, Episode 5 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, which involved the question of whether the city of New Haven, Connecticut violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it rejected the results of a civil service exam given to firefighters. The results of the exam showed that white candidates had out-performed minority candidates and the question was raised as to whether the exam was discriminatory. The Supreme Court held 5–4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII because the city did not have a "strong basis in evidence" that it would have subjected itself to disparate impact liability. Because the plaintiffs won under their Title VII claim, the Court did not consider the plaintiffs' Equal Protection Clause argument. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito. Justice Ginsburg issued a dissent in this case, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer.  Justice Ginsburg opined:  This case presents an unfortunate situation, one New Haven might well have avoided had it utilized a better selection process in the first place. But what this case does not present is race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII. I dissent from the Court's judgment, which rests on the false premise that respondents showed "a significant statistical disparity," but "nothing more." Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano, Catherine A. Williams, and Leigh E. Barnwell discuss Justice Ginsburg's impact on this case. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg's writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle Bufano Catherine A. Williams Leigh E. Barnwell

Historic Voices Podcast: Global History and Culture
SCOTUS Kennedy on Campaign Finance Case - 2010

Historic Voices Podcast: Global History and Culture

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 12, 2021 33:16


S03-E06 We feature U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy sharing the court’s opinion about the Citizens United case that dramatically changed campaign finance laws in the U.S. and the influence of big money by corporations with our elections since. If you ever wondered why there are so many political advertisements and who funds many of them, this is the defining case. After this case was decided by a slim 5 to 4 margin, unlimited money from corporations could pour into political campaigns. Before this, campaigns had to depend upon individual contributions from people. The majority for a Supreme Court opinion select one justice to speak on behalf of them. On this occasion, it will be Associate Justice Kennedy. In addition to this audio episode, I also provide several PDF documents: first, a short overview of the case, second, a transcript of Kenney’s speech, third, a concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas, and finally, a short biography of Kenney. Let us now tune our radio dial to 2010 and listen to Justice Kennedy share a Supreme Court opinion that has changed ever election campaign since. The following links allow you to subscribe: iTunes, Amazon Music/Audible, Castbox.fm, Deezer, Facebook, Gaana, Google Podcast, iHeartRadio, Player.fm, Radio Public, Samsung Listen, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn, Twitter. and Vurbl. Automatically available through these podcast apps: Castamatic, iCatcher, Overcast, Pocket Casts, RSSRadio, and more. Please post comments to the individual episodes at http://historicvoices.org, podcast review and rating section within iTunes and other apps, or email to me. Thanks for listening, David Arendale, arendale@umn.edu

Zalma on Insurance
Explaining the History and Application of Punitive Damages

Zalma on Insurance

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 19, 2021 18:32


The award of punitive-type damages was common in early legal systems, and was mentioned in religious law as early as the Book of Exodus. Punitive-type damages were provided for in Babylonian law nearly 4000 years ago in the Code of Hammurabi, in the Hittite Laws of about 1400 B.C., in the Hebrew Covenant Code of Mosaic Law of about 1200 B.C., and in the Hindu Code of Manu of about 200 B.C. [Owen, Punitive Damages in Product Liability Litigation, 74 Mich L Rev 1257, 1262 n17 (1976).] The book of Exodus in the Old Testament provides: If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. He shall make restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or an ass or a sheep, he shall pay double. [EXODUS, 22:1] The punitive damages remedy has a long history. It was first articulated in England in a case of illegal entry. The jury was held justified in going beyond “the small injury done to the plaintiff” because of the desirability of taking account of “a most daring public attack made upon the liberty of the subject” through entry and imprisonment pursuant to “a nameless warrant.” [ Huckle v. Money, 2 Will.K.B. 206, 95 Eng.Rep. 768 (1763) and Wilkes v. Wood, Lofft 1, 18, 19, 98 Eng.Rep. 489, 498-99 (C.P.1763)} By the mid-1800s, as punitive damages increasingly became an established part of American tort law, American courts emphasized the punishment purpose of punitive damages. For example, in Hawk v Ridgway (1864) 33 Ill 473, 476, the court stated, "[w]here the wrong is wanton, or it is willful, the jury is authorized to give an amount of damages beyond the actual injury sustained as a punishment, and to preserve the public tranquility." Justice Scalia of the United States Supreme Court noted in a concurring opinion that, "In 1868, therefore, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, punitive damages were undoubtedly an established part of American common law of torts." [Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v Haslip (1991) 499 US 1, 26, 113 L Ed 2d 1, 25, 111 S Ct 1032.] Application of Punitive Damages In 2003 the US Supreme Court put limited punitive damages in the United States when in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell. 123 S.Ct. 1513, 538 U.S. 408, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (U.S. 04/07/2003) by a 6-3 vote, overturned a $145 million verdict against an insurer. The Supreme Court concluded that a punitive damages award of $145 million, where full compensatory damages were $1 million, is excessive and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority limited the ability of state and federal courts to award huge punitive damages awards and concluded that it was improbable that a punitive damage award more than a single digit multiplier of the compensatory damages award would seldom, if ever, pass the due process test. The Supreme Court, in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, supra, set forth specific tests that must be met before punitive damages could fulfill the requirements of due process. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

The General Eclectic
Normalizing Nihilism & the Capture of Cultural Production

The General Eclectic

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 11, 2021 59:21


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)

Notorious:  The Legal Legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
No Ordinary Piece of Cake: A Discussion of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm'n

Notorious: The Legal Legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 3, 2021 46:20


Featuring guest speaker, Joshua Block of the American Civil Liberties Union.  In Episode 8 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC), under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, in assessing a cakeshop owner's reasons for declining to make a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding celebration, violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In a 7-2 opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court reversed the CCRC's decision. The Court narrowly ruled that the CCRC did not employ religious neutrality and violated the bakery owner's right to free exercise of religion. The Court declined to decide the broader issues of the intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech.  Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. Strongly disagreeing with the outcome of the majority, Justice Ginsburg argued, “When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding ― not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings ― and that is the service [the couple] were denied.” Joshua Block, a senior staff attorney with the National ACLU's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Projects, joined by Patterson Belknap attorneys, Michelle Bufano, Jonah Knobler and Elena Steiger Reich, discuss the different views expressed by the majority and dissent.  Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg's writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Joshua Block Michelle Bufano Jonah Knobler Elena Steiger Reich

Zalma on Insurance
Explaining the Controls on Punitive Damages

Zalma on Insurance

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 4, 2020 18:20


Control on Punitive Damages https://zalma.com/blog The US Supreme Court has clearly stated that “[p]unitive damages may properly be imposed to further a State's legitimate interests in punishing unlawful conduct and deterring its repetition.” [BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U. S. 559]. These damages often exceed the fines assessed by the state if the same person had acted criminally to damage the plaintiff. The skills of plaintiff's trial lawyers have convinced juries to award damages in sums that exceed the annual budget of Greece. The jury assesses the enormous damages because it becomes inflamed by the wrongful conduct of the defendant and agrees with the lawyer's suggestion that the jury “teach the defendant a lesson” to stop it from doing the same to others. The argument has been successful in thousands of suits brought from Vermont to California and Florida to Washington. For years punitive damage awards were unlimited. A $40 compensatory damage award resulted in a $5,000,000.00 punitive damages verdict. Some juries assessed billions of dollars in punitive damages with no constraint from the courts other than the wealth of the defendant. In 2003 the US Supreme Court put limited punitive damages in the United States when in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell 123 S.Ct. 1513, 538 U.S. 408, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (U.S. 04/07/2003) by a 6-3 vote, overturned a $145 million verdict against an insurer. The Supreme Court concluded that a punitive damages award of $145 million, where full compensatory damages were $1 million, is excessive and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority limited the ability of state and federal courts to award huge punitive damages awards and concluded that it was improbable that a punitive damage award more than a single digit multiplier of the compensatory damages award would seldom, if ever, pass the due process test. The Supreme Court, in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, supra, set forth specific tests that must be met before punitive damages could fulfill the requirements of due process. The State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, supra, case arose out of an automobile accident where one party was killed and another severely injured. The Campbells, insured by State Farm attempted to pass six vehicles on a two-lane highway, failed, and caused the driver of an oncoming car to drive off the road to escape collision with the Campbells' vehicle. The Campbells only had $25,000 coverage per person and $50,000 in the aggregate. The Campbells felt they were not at fault because there was no contact between the two vehicles. State Farm ignored the advice of its adjuster and counsel to accept policy limits demands and took the case to trial. The verdict at trial was more than $180,000 and the State Farm appointed counsel told the Campbells to put their house on the market since they would need the money to pay the verdict. State Farm refused to pay the judgment and to fund an appeal. The Campbells retained personal counsel to pursue an appeal that was not successful, entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs where the plaintiffs agreed to not execute on their judgment in exchange for an assignment of 90% of all money received in a bad faith action by the Campbells against State Farm. Before suit was filed, State Farm paid the full judgment. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

Justified Pursuit
Episode 9 – Are We Citizens or Subjects? Draconian COVID-19 Restrictions Still in Place Despite What Science Tells Us

Justified Pursuit

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 27, 2020 86:56


    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 [...]

Hidden Perspective
Picking Up The Pieces From The First 2020 U.S. Presidential Debate

Hidden Perspective

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 8, 2020 44:08


"Shitshow", "disaster", "disgrace" - just some of the words used to describe the first 2020 U.S. Presidential Debate between President Trump and Former Vice President Biden. Despite this, there are some policy issues worthy of discussion. Who's saying what? Who's making credible arguments? And who's full of shit?Please subscribe, leave a 5-star review, and tell your friends about the show. Thank you!***References:‘Amy Coney Barrett: Trump nominates conservative favourite for Supreme Court’, BBC.‘Supreme Court Justices Split Along Unexpected Lines In 3 Cases’, Nina Tontenberg,NPR.‘What Happened With Merrick Garland In 2016 And Why It Matters Now’, Ron Elving, NPR.‘A Long List of GOP Senators Who Promised Not to Confirm a Supreme Court Nominee During an Election Year’, Tim Murphy, Mother Jones.‘Justice Kennedy’s Retirement Will Lead to a More Divided Supreme Court’, Oliver Gladfelter, The Data Face.‘How Trump’s Prescription Drug Executive Orders Reduce Costs For Seniors & Taxpayers’, Avik Roy, Forbes.‘If Trump wins, 20 million people could lose health insurance. If Biden wins, 25 million could gain it.’, Dylan Scott, Vox.‘Closer Look: Trump, Biden Plans on Health Care’, Nick Tate, Web MD.‘President Donald J. Trump Is Implementing His America First Healthcare Agenda’, White House.‘Trump’s Executive Orders on Prescription Drugs’, Lori Robertson, FactCheck.org.‘Opinion: Trump’s executive order on health care is no replacement for Obamacare — here’s why’, Simon F. header, MarketWatch.‘Comparing the Economic Plans of Trump and Biden’, Deborah D’Souza, Investopedia.‘The Real Problem Behind The $26.8 Trillion U.S. National Debt’, Seeking Alpha.United States Government Debt to GDP, Trading Economics.‘US National Debt by Year Compared to GDP and Major Events’, Kimberly Amadeo & Michael J Boyle, The Balance.‘How the Coronavirus Bailout Repeats 2008’s Mistakes: Huge Corporate Payoffs With Little Accountability’, Jesse Eisinger, ProPublica.‘The Anatomy of the $2 Trillion COVID-19 Stimulus Bill’, Nick Routley, Visual Capitalist. ‘How the world’s greatest financial experiment enriched the rich’, Christopher Thompson, NewStatesman.‘The ballooning money supply may be the key to unlocking inflation in the U.S.’, Thomas Franck, CNBC.‘The controversial 1994 crime law that Joe Biden helped write, explained’, German Lopez, Vox.‘Biden vs. Trump: Who’s the Actual Criminal Justice Reformer?, Politico.‘Is Critical Race Theory racist?, Helen Pluckrose, Unherd.‘Proud Boys chairman condemns white supremacists, says Trump’s message of ‘stand by’ wasn’t call to action’, Amy Viteri, Local10.‘The Trump administration already made huge refugee cuts. It’s making more.’, Nicole Narea, Vox.‘Travel Ban Updates: Temporary Ban of Foreign Nationals Traveling From Mainland China Per Novel Coronavirus Outbreak; Additional Countries Added To Travel Ban 3.0’, National Law Review.‘Trump dismantles environmental protections under cover of coronavirus’, Emily Holden, The Guardian.‘What Joe Biden was trying to say about the Green New Deal’, David Roberts, Vox.Joebiden.com‘The year of mail-in voting: Why this year’s U.S. election could take weeks to decide’, Emerald Bensadoun, Global News.‘US election: Do postal ballots lead to voting fraud?’, BBC.‘EAVS DEEP DIVE: EARLY, ABSENTEE AND MAIL VOTING’, White Paper, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.***Music: Julian AngelatosArtwork: Nerpa Mate

THE VALLEY CURRENT®️ COMPUTERLAW GROUP LLP
The Valley Current®️ Did RBG help (or hinder) democracy in America by her decision to work full-time through her 80s (and should Presidents have the power to request "early retirement" from SCOTUS members)?

THE VALLEY CURRENT®️ COMPUTERLAW GROUP LLP

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 7, 2020 38:28


If anything, Robert Lieff should be considered the unofficial epitome of wisdom when it comes to American politics. The passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has caused a great upheaval between the GOP and the Democrats as the Right scrambles to nominate a candidate who appeals to diminishing fanbases and the (leaderless) Left struggles to delay should Biden assume office. With the presidential election looming on the horizon, Jack Russo and Robert Lieff discuss the death of the Notorious RBG and four reasons it drastically reshapes the presidential election in Trump's favor. They raise the interesting issue: Did RBG act selfishly in not retiring from the bench far earlier in the tenure of the Obama presidency given her health and status as one of the few (and only female) octogenarian justices?  Why didn't she do what Justice Kennedy did and retire in a timely fashion?"   5 Candidates To Watch As GOP Races To Fill Ginsburg's Seat Is this ironic given what we now know?

SCOTUStalk
Who is Amy Coney Barrett?

SCOTUStalk

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 28, 2020 26:01


Who is Judge Amy Coney Barrett and what’s next for her confirmation battle? Amy Howe answers these questions and more on this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk. Amy sits down with SCOTUSblog media editor Katie Barlow to discuss the significance of President Donald Trump’s third nomination to the court, what the truncated confirmation timeline will be like, and what hot-button issues she would face as the court’s newest justice. The full transcript is below. [00:00:00] Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! Amy Howe: [00:00:03] This is SCOTUStalk, a nonpartisan podcast about the Supreme Court for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, brought to you by SCOTUSblog.AH: [00:00:13] On Saturday, President Donald Trump announced that he was nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. What does Barrett's nomination mean for the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to begin its new term on Monday, October 5th? Joining me to suss this out is Katie Barlow, SCOTUSblog's media editor. Katie, thanks for joining me. Let's go ahead and dive in.Katie Barlow: [00:00:37] Now that we know who President Trump's nominee is, then we can start to dig into her background and some of the opinions that she's written. It's easy to get into the weeds, but let's zoom out to ten thousand feet for a second and just talk about what is the significance of this nomination and what could it mean?AH: [00:00:58] So if Amy Coney Barrett turns out to be a justice in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked and whose jurisprudence she says she emulates, it really could be a seismic shift on the court. Many of the Supreme Court's recent decisions on the sort of hot button social issues of the day have been five, four decisions. And many of the decisions in which the justices have reached what many would consider to be a liberal result have been because the either the chief justice or before him, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined the court's four more liberal justices. And now that group of four more liberal justices is down would be down to three, because Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away last week, was one of the most reliably liberal justices on the court. And so, you'd have three liberal justices and a really solid majority of six conservative justices.[00:02:01] And so it wouldn't really so much matter anymore if one of the conservative justices peeled off to vote for with the liberal justices because there would still be a very solid majority of five conservative justices. And so this could affect all kinds of issues like abortion, affirmative action, gun rights, you name it.KB: [00:02:21] All right. So, having taken that wider lens view, now let's zoom back in. And who is Amy Coney Barrett? What do we know about her? Who is she?[00:02:32] So we know quite a lot. She is a forty-eight-year-old judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which is based in Chicago. She grew up in Louisiana, went to law school at Notre Dame, where she was a top student before coming to Washington, first a clerk on the D.C. Circuit and then to clerk on the Supreme Court for Justice Scalia. She stayed in Washington for a couple of years to practice law, starting at a law firm called Miller Cassidy, which was a boutique law firm and really was one of the hardest jobs to get in Washington as a young law student at the time. So ,she stayed there for a couple of years and then she went back to Notre Dame to teach as a law professor there for 15 years before becoming a federal judge in 2017. While she was at Notre Dame, she won teaching awards. She had very broad support from the faculty and her students when she was nominated by President Trump to serve on the Court of Appeals in 2017.KB: [00:03:30] We heard at the nomination ceremony yesterday how excited the conservatives were.[00:03:35] I mean, there was an uproar of applause. Why are they so excited about her nomination?AH: [00:03:41] So she has said that she is in terms of her judicial philosophy and originalist and textualist. And so an originalist is someone who interprets the Constitution according to what the words meant to the people who drafted them when it was drafted back in the 1780s. And a textualist. When you're interpreting the law, you look at the words on the page. You don't go looking at what Congress might have intended to do when it passed the law. And really, almost anyone whom the president nominated probably would have said that. But, Amy Coney Barrett really became a heroine to social conservatives at her 2017 confirmation hearing. There were a lot of questions about the extent to which her Catholic faith might influence her judging. And there was a famous moment in which Senator Dianne Feinstein of California said to her, “The dogma lives loudly within you.” And it really sort of went viral, I think, among social conservatives. There were mugs and T-shirts printed with that. It probably had the opposite effect from what Feinstein had intended. And so I think that the social conservatives, conservatives believe that she's going to be like her old boss, Justice Scalia, on important social issues. She signed a statement of protest while she was at Notre Dame criticizing the accommodations that the Obama administration had created for religious employers, for example, who would have otherwise needed to comply with the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. Religious employers had argued that even the workaround that the Obama administration had created still violated their religious rights by making them complicit in providing birth control to their female employees. And the president had promised while he was running for president back in twenty sixteen that he was going to appoint judges who would vote to overturn Roe versus Wade. And they probably believe she's likely to vote to do that in her votes in a couple of cases on the bench while she's been on the 7th Circuit, or at least suggest they were.[00:05:46] There's a little bit of nuance in the sense that these were votes on whether or not the full 7th Circuit should rehear cases in which a three-judge panel had struck down Indiana laws regulating abortion. But those votes suggest that she supported those laws in Indiana regulating abortion.KB: [00:06:06] So you mentioned her abortion related decisions, not written opinions, but her votes in cases to rehear en banc. And it's interesting because she spent three years on the 7th Circuit before her nomination, whereas her fellow Trump appointee colleagues, if she gets confirmed, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh spent nearly 10 years each in their respective federal judgeships on the 10th Circuit and the D.C. Circuit.[00:06:34] And in fact, hot button issues like abortion didn't come up for Justice Gorsuch, who was able to avoid those types of decisions in his nearly decade on the 10th Circuit. And she's going to have more than just abortion come up. She's written opinions already on things like gun rights and immigration and sexual assault on college campuses. So, what do you think is going to come up based on the opinions that you've looked at already? You've written about them. SCOTUSblog has started to delve into them. In fact, we have all nearly one hundred of her opinions on our website if anybody wants to look at them. But what do you think is going to be top priority out of her opinions in the Judiciary Committee hearing?AH: [00:07:16] So, yes, I think it's a great point about Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. We were left to sort of pass his book about euthanasia, which arose out of his Ph.D. dissertation to try and figure out what that might mean for his views on abortion, because I don't think it had come up at all while he was on the bench.[00:07:39] I think certainly the Affordable Care Act is something that is going to be top of mind for Democrats at the confirmation hearing. She was quite critical of the chief justice's vote, his decision to uphold the individual mandate.[00:07:54] She really was very skeptical about it. And the Affordable Care Act and the individual mandate are going to be back at the Supreme Court on November 10th. And I think we may talk a little bit more about the timeline, but it's certainly something that she could very well be on the bench to hear oral argument in. And so that is something I think that they're likely to address. I think abortion is certainly going to be something that they're going to address. Gun rights in 2019, she dissented from a ruling in which the majority on a three-judge panel rejected the argument that a federal law, state law that barred people who've been convicted of felonies from having guns violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms. She dissented. She said, you really have to look at this on a case-by-case basis. This guy had been convicted of mail fraud and at the time of the country's founding, legislatures looked at whether or not someone was likely to be dangerous before they took away his gun rights. And the implication was this guy is not dangerous. And she said the Second Amendment confers an individual right. I think everyone believes that if she were confirmed, which seems at this point likely that she's likely to take a broader reading of the Second Amendment. I think, as you mentioned, there's a case in which she wrote for a three-judge panel that reinstated a lawsuit brought against Purdue University by a student who had been found guilty of sexual assault through the university's student discipline program.[00:09:27] One expert on university compliance with the federal laws barring gender discrimination in education said that this opinion was a trendsetter. He called it that would make it easier for students to bring these kinds of lawsuits against universities to trial.KB: [00:09:43] All of those things are obviously reflective of what is concerning liberals at the moment. Democrats circulated a memo already outlining 19 potential delay tactics for this nomination. But is it more than just those opinions? What is so concerning to the left right now?AH: [00:10:03] I think there is I think there's a couple of things going on, I mean, I think there there is this sense that she will be like her old boss, Justice Scalia, and could well be once she's on the bench, kind of a thought leader, in the same way that Justice Scalia was. I mean, I think there's also the element, the liberals, both because of what's at stake generally and then because of the process, the idea that back in 2016 Republicans refused to fill the vacancy when President Obama was nearing the end of his second term, but are now filling a vacancy when President Trump's is up for reelection and election is looming so large, that this is just wrong. I think they certainly would have opposed whoever the president would have nominated. It's almost unimaginable that he would nominate someone who would be acceptable both to his base and to Democrats. I think Barack Obama tried that. It didn't go so well. And now she does have, unlike some of the other judges who were reportedly in the mix as potential nominees, this long paper trail on issues that they can point to.KB: [00:11:23] So we kind of got our first national public glimpse of her beyond her, her judiciary hearing for the 7th Circuit, which was interesting, but I'm not sure the entire nation was watching in the same way as they were watching the ceremony in the Rose Garden when President Trump nominated her, and she spoke after he gave his speech, officially nominating her. Talk a little bit about what she said when she spoke in the Rose Garden. What did she say to us and to the country?AH: [00:11:51] It was only eight minutes. We'll see a lot more of her. At the confirmation hearing. She said some of the things you'd expect. You know, that she was deeply honored. She was truly humbled. She paid tribute to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She observed that this was all happening very quickly, that the flags were still flying at half-staff. She talked about her family. She's the mother of seven children and her husband. And she really tried to address some of the divisions in the country, particularly when it came to her nomination. She talked about Justice Ginsburg as a pioneer, but she also talked about Justice Ginsburg's friendship with Justice Scalia. And she said they disagreed fiercely in print, but they always got along in person. And, you know, maybe she seemed to me to be alluding to the controversy over her Catholic faith and what role that might play in her judging. And she said the Supreme Court belongs to all of us and she pledged to be impartial.KB: [00:12:47] It's been a bit of a long road to get to her nomination. She had been circulating in conversations about potential nominees. She was in the conversation for when Justice Kavanaugh was nominated.[00:13:03] Can you talk a little bit about the road to this nomination, the short list, the multiple short lists, including one we got not so very long ago, and other finalists that were considered.AH: [00:13:15] So the president back in twenty sixteen when he was running for president, released a list of potential nominees. And he said, if I'm elected and there's a vacancy, I will draw from this list. The list was a big success, really, I think sort of upped his credibility with conservatives and particularly with religious conservatives who been somewhat skeptical about him, whether he was really one of them, so to speak. Remember, there are videos circulating like a clip of him on Meet the Press with the late Tim Russert saying, you know, “I'm very pro-choice.” And so I think this helped to reassure them before the election that if he were elected, he would pick a conservative, because at that point there was the opening created by the death of Justice Scalia. And then he added to the list. Again Justice Kavanaugh was added to the list later on so that he was on the list of potential nominees by the time Justice Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018. And then just recently, President Trump released a new list of potential nominees that was added to the old list. And among the people on that list was a judge in Florida named Barbara Lagoa, who's on the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Alison Jones Rushing, who's quite young, she's only 38 years old and has been on the bench for about a year and a half. And Justice Ginsburg passed away on Friday, and the president made his announcement the following Saturday. But after Justice Kennedy's retirement, as you as you mentioned, Judge Barrett was by all accounts, on the short list for that vacancy. And there was reporting by Axios after the vacancy was filled by now Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that Trump had told his advisers that he was saving a Amy Coney Barrett in case Justice Ginsburg were to leave the court during his presidency.[00:15:18] And so it all moved very quickly after Justice Ginsburg passed away, eight days before the nomination was made. But you had the sense, I don't know that anyone knew inside the White House or even outside her close circle of friends sort of how she was doing. But there had been reports about her health problems. And I imagine that inside the White House, they were prepared to be ready, at least for a vacancy on the Supreme Court. There hasn't been any reporting yet, but it's not clear whether or not anyone else was ever seriously in the mix besides Amy Coney Barrett. Judge Lagoa, there was there was a lot of political upside to nominating her. She was the first Hispanic woman and the first Cuban-American woman on the Florida Supreme Court. Obviously, there's an upcoming election. Florida's got a lot of electoral votes and she's very well regarded in conservative circles but doesn't necessarily have the conservative track record that Amy Coney Barrett has yet. Jeremy Diamond of CNN reported that at a fundraiser in Florida just in the last couple of days, that the president told Florida leaders that if he's re-elected, and there's another vacancy, that judge Lagoa would definitely be in the mix. Alison Jones Rushing, as I mentioned, is only 38. She's only been on the court of appeals for about a year and a half. And so, although I don't think anyone would question her academic credentials to be on the court, she may just not be quite seasoned enough as a judge to be on the Supreme Court yet.KB: [00:17:00] So now that she has been thrown into the fire, so to speak, both she and the Senate Judiciary Committee have to work quickly.[00:17:10] We're expecting hearings to begin the week of October 12th, which is in two weeks. And typically, that process takes about six weeks from nomination to hearing.[00:17:19] So talk a little bit about what happens next, how quickly that's going to happen, what the timeline is going to look like. Clearly, multiple things are going to be happening at once.AH: [00:17:27] Sure. I mean, you know, there's no requirement, obviously, that they work quickly. Obviously, it sounds like the president wants to get her on the Supreme Court before the election for a variety of reasons. And having done that, then they would have to work quickly because there were 38 days from Saturday when the president made the nomination until Election Day. So the hearings are scheduled for October 12th. Senator Lindsey Graham has said that they would like to have Judge Barrett's nomination clear the committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, by October 26th to set up a vote before the election. So it is certainly much faster than most Supreme Court nominations move. I've seen reporting that some Democratic senators have said that they don't intend to meet with Judge Barrett. Normally, a nominee will come to Washington if they're not already there and do a round of courtesy visits with different senators to sort of get to know them a little bit, talk a little bit about judging in advance of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So that will save Judge Barrett a little bit of time, I guess, if she's not meeting with all of the senators.KB: [00:18:36] Right. A lot of people got the short end of the stick here, but I mostly feel sorry for everyone in the Supreme Court press corps because they had last term go over and had to go into the summer. It's been an incredibly busy summer with election litigation and other things. And now not only is the term starting in a week with some major cases, but you guys will have a simultaneous coverage of a nomination confirmation, not just a normal one, one that's happening extremely quickly at the same time.AH: [00:19:05] I don't feel sorry for the people that feel sorry for the people in the Supreme Court's public information office. They are the ones working overtime.KB: [00:19:13] Right. I feel sorry for them, too. There's a lot ahead. What are your thoughts? Can she can she be confirmed before the election?AH: [00:19:20] I mean, it sounds like they intend to do it. It would be much faster than most confirmations. As I said, it was 38 days between Saturday when the president nominated Judge Barrett and Election Day. Justice Ginsburg's confirmation process was relatively quick. Hers was 50 days. Justice Gorsuch, nd this was a situation in which Justice Scalia's seat had been vacant for quite a while. So I think there was a little bit of a pressure to fill it. His was 66 days. The average has been around 70 days. I mean, there's nothing magic about the election, even if, as the president has suggested, he wants to have someone on the Supreme Court to deal with any election related litigation. That election related litigation is not going to magically arrive at the Supreme Court on November 4th. It would take a while to bubble up through the lower courts and arrive at the Supreme Court, but they've obviously made a decision that they would like to try and do it. And I think it's one of those things where you have to borrow an old cliché, if there's a will, there's a way. KB: And there's certainly there's certainly a will, so it seems. So you mentioned potential election litigation. But putting that aside, what are the cases coming up which her nomination and confirmation could make a difference? What's on the docket already, short term and longer term.AH: [00:20:44] So in the short term, this and this could be a reason why they want to have her on the bench, certainly, putting aside the election related litigation. On November 4th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case called Fulton vs. City of Philadelphia. And this is about the balance between religious beliefs and anti-discrimination laws and in particular, anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBTQ people. It's sort of a slightly different version of the Masterpiece Cake Shop case that the Supreme Court heard a couple of years ago. That was the case of the Colorado baker who did not want to make a cake for a same sex wedding celebration. This is a lawsuit brought against the City of Philadelphia by Catholic Social Services. Catholic Social Services has a policy of not working with foster care parents who are same sex couples because of the agency's religious beliefs. And as a result, the City of Philadelphia has a policy of not working with Catholic Social Services. And Catholic Social Services says that violates its religious beliefs. The Supreme Court had a hard time with the Masterpiece Cake Shop case back in 2018 while Justice Kennedy was still on the bench. They sort of dealt with it very narrowly. They ruled in favor of the baker, but on the ground that the Colorado administrative agency that had ruled against him had been unfair to him because of his religious beliefs. They didn't issue some sort of broader constitutional pronouncement. So it's not clear whether the Supreme Court will do that this time.[00:22:20] But there may be more likely to be five votes for some sort of broader constitutional rule with a Justice Barrett on the bench. And then the big one on November 10th is the battle over the Affordable Care Act. Whether or not the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty is constitutional now that Congress has taken away, in essence, the penalty for failing to get health insurance. And so there's a couple of different questions in that case. Back in 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's former liberal justices in saying that the mandate was constitutional because it's a tax. But even if there were no longer five votes for the proposition that it is still constitutional, there's a separate question. And then what happens? Is it just that the mandate is no longer a part of the Affordable Care Act? Or does some or all of the Affordable Care Act go with it? And then looking further down the road, it seems very likely that the Supreme Court is going to have to deal with issues relating to abortion. Affirmative action, acouple of weeks ago, the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit heard oral argument in the challenge to Harvard's admissions policies. The argument is that Harvard is discriminating against Asian-Americans in its admissions policies. Back in 2016, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court's three liberal justices because Justice Kagan was recused. So the vote was four to three to uphold the University of Texas’ admissions policy.[00:24:00] But that was then. This is now. There's been quite a change in the composition of the court. And then gun rights. In 2019, in December, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to a New York City rule that banned people who live in New York City and have a license to have a gun from taking their guns outside of New York City. But then they dismissed that case as moot. There is no longer a live controversy, just as Brett Kavanaugh suggested that perhaps the court should take up another case to say more about how broadly the Second Amendment applies, because the Supreme Court has said there is a Second Amendment right to have a gun in your home for self-defense, but really hasn't said much more than that in about 10 years. But the Supreme Court didn't do that. They had an opportunity to do that with a whole group of cases right after the New York case. And the conventional wisdom, for what it's worth, is that there would be four conservative votes on the Supreme Court to take up a Second Amendment case, but that they hadn't done so because they're not sure about what Chief Justice John Roberts would do in such a case. And so to sort of take this and project, if Justice Amy Coney Barrett were on the bench, there may well be five votes to take up a Second Amendment case and say more about what the Second Amendment protects.KB: [00:25:26] All right. Well, it sounds like there's a lot in the long-term future, but for now, we have the nomination and confirmation process to focus on.[00:25:34] And as always, Amy, thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.[00:25:38] We always learn something. We're grateful.AH: [00:25:40] Thank you. We'll be back to talk about it soon. I imagine there's going to be plenty more in the weeks ahead.[00:25:47] That's another episode of SCOTUStalk.[00:25:49] Thanks for joining us. Thanks to Casetext, our sponsor, and to our production team Katie Barlow, Katie Bart, Kal Golde, and James Romoser. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Harlem World Magazine Podcast
Harlem's Judge Tanya Kennedy Talks Harlem, COVID-19 And More On The Danny Tisdale Show

The Harlem World Magazine Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 4, 2020 30:04


Harlem legendary Judge Tanya Kennedy talks Harlem, Black Lives Matter, the COVID Crisis, and more with host Danny Tisdale, on The Danny Tisdale Show. Harlem born Judge Tanya Kennedy is past President of the National Association of Women Judges, an organization of over 1,000 judges, attorneys, law professors, and law students from across the nation.  She is also a Supreme Court Justice of the State of New York, Civil Term, and the former Supervising Judge of Civil Court, New York County.  Justice Kennedy previously served for ten years as an Adjunct Professor at Fordham University School of Law.  She is a board of directors of the New York City Bar Committee to Encourage Judicial Service and a member of the Board of Overseers of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where she received her law degree. And today, we just found out that Tanya has been appointed as one of four judges to the first department of the Apellate Division of NYC Court.  All on this week's edition of The Danny Tisdale Show; the radio show hosted by businessman, award-winning visual artist, educator, reality tv star on Colonial House, and former Harlem Community Board member Danny Tisdale.Please like and share the show.Subscribe to our podcasts from iHeartRadio, to Apple Podcasts, to Spotify, to Google Podcasts, to Stitcher, to TuneIn + Alexa and get the feed here.Find more from Harlem World Magazine podcast at https://www.harlemworldmagazine.com/podcastFollow usFacebook: http://www.facebook.com/harlemworldmagazineTwitter: http://www.twitter.com/hwmagInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/harlemworldmagazine YouTube: https://youtu.be/pqhTpc7Y7FcSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/theharlemworldmagazinepodcast)

The Manny's Podcast
Manny's LIVE: Breaking Down This Year's Supreme Court Decisions w/Ben Feuer

The Manny's Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 11, 2020 67:54


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.

Prison Professors With Michael Santos
137. Earning Freedom, by Michael Santos

Prison Professors With Michael Santos

Play Episode Listen Later May 31, 2020 25:47


Earning Freedom: Conquering a 45-Year Prison Term by Michael Santos Reading Chapter 10.3 Months 180-190 ****** When I enter the visiting room on New Year’s morning, the large room feels empty. I appreciate the relative silence. Other than the whir of the vending machine, there’s nothing else to distract us. Carole and her daughter sit beside each other in the maroon plastic chairs. Carole looks lovely in her heavy wool coat, long blonde hair contrasting beautifully against the navy blue. She stands to greet me as I walk toward her. Nichole sits calmly, showing none of the distress I see in her mother. At 11 she resembles Carole, but with dark hair curling in natural waves around her heart-shaped face. A light sprinkle of freckles dot the bridge of her nose. Her hazel-blue eyes look directly into mine as I kneel in front of her chair and greet her. “You must be Nichole. I’m Michael, and I’m very happy to meet you.” “Hi Michael. This place is huge.” “Yes, and we’re lucky that it’s not filled with people already,” I say with a smile. “Nichole, honey,” Carole says “we’re only going to be here for an hour. Why don’t you get a hot chocolate from the vending machine and then walk over and see what’s in the kids’ area. I need to talk with Michael.” “But I want to talk with him too.” “We’re going to visit again in a couple of days,” I tell her. “And if you want, you can sit with your mom and me the whole time. Is that okay?” Nichole nods her head. Carole hands her several quarters from the clear plastic coin purse she brings for buying the vending machine food. As Nichole walks toward the kids’ area, sipping hot chocolate, I hold Carole’s hands in mine and squeeze them to reassure her. “Did you sleep okay?” She breathes in deeply and slowly, exhales, and then says she slept fine. “Honey, I should be comforting you, but we don’t have much time. Because it’s a holiday, every hour we spend in here today is costing us double against our monthly allotment of 30 hours. We have to act fast, and we need a plan, okay?” “If we run out of time, I think Office Cruz will let me in.” “Carole,” I caution her, “this is prison. He may have let you in last night because he was alone and he felt sorry for you. We can’t live on the edge like that. We have to budget our visits. The system controls everything and we have to succeed in spite of it.” “What do you want me to do?” she asks, eyes filling with tears. “Last night you said you wanted to stay here. Are you sure?” “I’m absolutely sure.” “Good, because I want you to stay with me. Every decision we make has to be consistent with our goal of bringing you stability, and it’s not going to be easy  But we have to make a 100 percent commitment to making it work, no matter how painful the decisions.” “I’ve already got the newspaper and I’m looking for apartments.” “Honey, think about that. You don’t know this area, the schools, the neighborhood, or where you’re going to work. How much do you think it will cost to rent an apartment?” “I’m guessing about $1,000 a month, more or less,” she answers. “To move in, then, you’ll need first, last, and security. Then you’ll need money for utilities and necessities. You’re going to drop $5,000 minimum to set yourself up. That doesn’t seem like a good plan to me, especially since you don’t know where you’ll work or how much you’ll earn. We need stability.” “What do you think I should do?” “Remember the story I wrote about Richard, a guy who arrived here a few months ago? You typed it for me and posted it on the Web.” Carole pauses, trying to recall. “Vaguely. You’ve sent me so many stories.” “Richard’s wife lives a few miles from here, in Mount Holly. She has a little boy and a four-bedroom house. I asked Richard last night if his wife would rent you a couple of rooms. You could move in today, and the two of you could support each other. Nichole would have another child to keep her company, and you could catch your breath, get your bearings.” “Michael, I can’t move in with a stranger.” Carole doesn’t see the merit in my suggestion. “Carole, this isn’t going to be easy. I’m sending you $10,000. That money has to cover all of your expenses until you start earning a paycheck. You need to get settled. You need a car. Nichole needs to start school again next week. This lady can help you.” “But I don’t know her, Michael. You’re asking me to live with a stranger. I’m not concerned about me, Honey. I have to consider Nichole’s well-being.” I put my arm around her and pull her close. “Do you trust me?” “Of course I trust you.” “And do you want to build your life with me, grow old with me?” “Yes.” “Then you have to work with me. I can steer us through this crisis, but we both have to understand that the decisions we make today, from this minute, will determine where we are tomorrow.” I extend my arm and open my hand. “Do you see that?” “See what?” “My fingers. Each of those represents a year. That’s five years. Can you make it through five years with me?” “I’m going to make it through forever with you.” “Okay. Well let’s focus on five years. In five years, your life will be totally different from what it is now if we work together. You’ll be stable, with your own money in the bank, money you’ve earned. We won’t succeed by accident. We need to make tough decisions now, to commit and recommit 100 percent with every decision, reaching toward that five-year mark. When we make it to five, then we’ll work toward the next five. By then I’ll almost be ready for release. And you’ll be independent. Do you want that?” “Yes.” “Then you have to make hard choices now. Thank God we have this money from my stock account. But we can’t squander it with bad decisions. We have to focus on stabilizing you as quickly as possible. If you meet Richard’s wife with that goal in mind, understanding that she’s an answer to a prayer for us to be together, then you’ll see the move as a step that leads us closer to our five-year goal.” “What if we don’t get along?” “That’s up to you and the way that you approach her. She needs you and you need her. You can make it work.” ****** Carole settles in with her new housemate, Catherine, and she enrolls Nichole in school. It’s early spring, 2003, and the job market is terrible. Through sheer resourcefulness, Carole learns that she can earn an income by providing notary services to the mortgage industry.  She secures the necessary credentials and becomes self-employed, earning an income sufficient to support her and Nichole. I’m walking along the road inside the Fort Dix fences, admiring the warm sunbeams that cut through the wire mesh and razor wire, reflecting off the shiny metal. Fragrant cherry blossoms and blooming flowerbeds fill the air with the scent of spring. I’m filled with appreciation for the blessings in my life. Through the fence I watch Carole’s tan Toyota Corolla pull into the visitor’s parking lot. She can’t see me, as I’m only one prisoner among thousands wearing khakis inside the compound. I watch her walk briskly, wearing her red skirt and jacket, heels clicking on the asphalt, hair blowing behind her, rushing to pass through the checkpoints to visit me. She thinks she’s surprising me, but my only surprise is her remarkable consistency and devotion to serving this time with me. Carole wants us to marry, but I put her off. Marriage is easy for me, I tell her. I’m a prisoner and she’s a beautiful woman. I’m giving her all that I am as it is, and I freely commit to her, but there’s no rush. I want her to understand all the complications of prison before we marry. “I watched you as you parked, as you rushed across the parking lot. You didn’t surprise me,” I tell her after our kiss. “I drove fast to get here in time for the last two hours of visiting.” “I’m always expecting you.” The visiting room has become our living room. We sometimes walk through the rows and aisles of chairs, holding hands, chatting with other prison families. She buys dinner for me from the vending machines.  It’s always the same menu choice of frozen pizza, burritos, or hamburgers that she cooks in the microwave. “I like preparing your food,” she says, and watches me eat. “This is what it’s going to be like when we’re old and living together in a nursing home,” I tease. “We’ll have familiar faces around us, strangers we recognize, but we’ll have our own life. You can push my wheelchair.” “Wherever you are, that’s where I want to be,” she wipes a napkin against my mouth. “Why do you eat so fast?” “I got used to it over the years. The guards rush us out of the chow hall. You’ll have to teach me manners once they release me.” “You don’t even taste your food. You just inhale.” She tilts her head in amazement. “And how can you eat so much?” “Believe me, I taste it. Besides, this is how I test if you really love me. If you can stand to watch me eat, I know you’ll stay with me.” “I’ll stay with you,” she says, and then adds, “but you better stay with me at the dinner table until I’m finished!” We walk around the room and stop by the television as President Bush grabs hold of the lectern to address the nation. “I can’t stand all this talk about going into Iraq. For what?” I say, shaking my head in disgust at the image of Bush in his familiar blue suit with his open arms and ridiculous gestures. “How many soldiers have to lose their lives for his ambitions?” “I just wish he’d let you out,” Carole squeezes my hand. “Forget about that happening under his rule.” ****** When I return to the housing unit after our visit I see scores of prisoners gathered in front of the bulletin board. They’re cursing and complaining. “What’s up?” I ask. “Fuckin’ warden,” one prisoner says. “More fuckin’ bullshit, fuckin’ with my peoples. I ain’t gonna be able to see my babies’ mammas.” I push my way through the crowd to read the memo. It cites the nation’s elevated security-threat level and the imminent war in Iraq as a reason behind the warden’s new rule that limits visiting to immediate family members only. That means he will only authorize parents, children, siblings, and wives to visit until further notice. My heart sinks. Carole has only been living in New Jersey for three months, but our lives are now linked. She is overseeing the development of my new website, MichaelSantos.net, and helping to establish my “brand.” She is the link between my publishers and me, and she has complete responsibility for the publishing company she formed to market and distribute books I’m writing. We’ve begun our lives as a family, planning and preparing for my life upon release in 2013. Despite Carole’s cross-country move to living just minutes away, this new rule will not permit us to see each other. I call to tell her about the new mandate. “Well, are they going to increase the phone-minute allotment so we can at least talk more?” “We’ll still have to make do with 300 phone minutes a month.” “How can they say they promote community ties if they make rules that are so hard on families?” “Honey, this is my life. It’s what I’ve been telling you. They can do whatever they choose and for any reason. I don’t have any control.” “Then we have to get married, Michael. We can’t wait. We’re a family.” “Baby, we shouldn’t get married just to visit. Marriage is for the rest of our lives, and you have to be absolutely sure you can handle the rest of my sentence.” “I know exactly what I’m doing. Whatever the system does to you, it does to me, too. We’re in this together.” Carole is an amazing woman and I feel so grateful to have her love. ****** I initiate the necessary paperwork to marry. My case manager, Mr. Lawson, is sitting behind his messy metal desk when I hand him the official request. “What’s this, a marriage request?” “That’s right. I’m getting married.” “Thought you was smarter den dat. After all dese years, you ain’t learnt? Prison’s a place to get divorced, not married.” He laughs. “When I start looking for advice on building happiness from prison guards, I’ll look you up,” I respond. There's too much venom in my retort. Mr. Lawson puts the forms on his desk and glares at me. “I’s a case manager. Ain’t no prison guards here. Dey’s ‘correctional officers’. Get it straight.” Mr. Lawson reviews the form. “Goin’ hafta run dis by da unit team, den send it on up to da warden. I’ll let you know. Now git outta he’r.” “This isn’t a discretionary issue,” I tell him. “The Supreme Court says I have a constitutional right to marry. You can’t block the request.” “Boy, don’t be spittin’ no law at me. We gots a war goin’ on. Security ̓a da insta-tution. We goin’ review yo request, an’ like I says, I’ll let you know.  Wha’s up?  You gotta problem wit dat?” While I brace myself for a bureaucratic struggle to receive permission to marry, I urge Carole to use this time when we can’t visit to enroll in a real estate class. The wife of another prisoner is a broker for Prudential. She’s offered to bring Carole on as an agent and teach her the trade. Instead of a bureaucratic struggle, a staff shakeup results in a new case manager who is much nicer, and a new unit manager, Mr. Jones, who recently transferred to Fort Dix from USP Leavenworth. Mr. Jones, or TJ, as I’ve heard staff members cordially refer to him, is in his early 30s, black, well-dressed, and built like an NFL linebacker. He is respectful and totally professional. When I approach him about my marriage request he congratulates me, assuring me that he’ll push the approval through in time for a June wedding. ****** I wake early on my wedding day, June 24, 2003, smiling. I’ll celebrate this day with Carole for the rest of my life. I step outside to run, feeling the humidity of an East Coast summer, but the breeze I generate by running cools my skin. I’ve paid a heavy price with this prison term, surrendering most of my life as a consequence, but now I have Carole. Although prison rules require two witnesses at our wedding, Nichole isn’t allowed to participate because she’s still younger than 18. I would’ve liked Julie to come, but she just gave birth to her second child, Sophia. My father is in an Alzheimer’s home, unable even to talk with me over the phone, much less travel. But I’m happy that both my mom and my younger sister, Christina, are flying in from Miami for the ceremony. My mother calls Carole my ‘angel’ and the description suits her perfectly. Two hours in the visiting room is all that we’re going to have, but it’s a fitting place for the ceremony because it’s where we spend all of our time together. I’ll wear a wedding ring when I walk out. Julie sent us the matching silver bands as a wedding gift. The rings will symbolize our commitment and once Carole slides mine onto my finger, I intend to keep it on forever. We’ll make this work. I finish running eight miles and slow my pace to a walk when I see Bob. He extends his hand. “Congratulations, Buddy. I’m glad we’ve met, and I wish you and Carole happiness, good health, and prosperity. You’re going to make her an excellent husband.” “Thanks, Bob. Your friendship means a great deal to me, and I appreciate your good wishes. I’m sorry you can’t be there for the ceremony.” “We’ll have a party when you’re out, when we’re both home.” “I’m looking forward to it.” “Are your mom and sister here?” “I hope so. They’re supposed to be with Carole now. I’d better go shower.” “Good luck, and God bless.” Wearing crisply ironed khakis and polished black leather shoes, I look as sharp as a prisoner can when I present my ID card to Lieutenant Marks. “This has got to be the stupidest thing you’ve ever done,” the lieutenant says sarcastically, shaking his head. “You ought to tattoo the word ‘fool’ right across your forehead.” He points to his head then loudly slurps coffee from his foam cup. I strain to hold my sarcasm in check. He’d like nothing better than to unsnap one of the leather compartments on his heavy black leather belt, pull out a set of shiny metal handcuffs, and slap them on my wrist, canceling this special day for Carole and me. “If you’re going through with it, let’s go. I got a prison to run.” He leads me into the visiting room, without a preliminary strip search. Four other prisoners come along, as they’ll be marrying today as well. I don’t know them. I’m too consumed with the excitement coursing through me to concern myself with anyone else. I sit in a chair and watch for Carole. When the door opens I stand, smiling as this beautiful lady walks toward me. More than a year has passed since my mother or Christina have visited and I’m grateful they made the special trip for my wedding ceremony, but I can’t take my eyes off of Carole. Her cream-colored suit compliments her slender figure, and I like the graceful way she walks. She opens her arms and we embrace, sharing a kiss while my mom and sister stand by watching. “Thanks for coming, Mom,” I turn to hug her. She’s always emotional when she sees me, and this morning isn’t any different.  My imprisonment has been incredibly difficult for my mom. “I’m so happy you have such a beautiful bride, so happy for both of you.” I hug my sister next. Christina is four years younger than I am, petite and pretty, with long brown hair and a glowing face that resists aging. She’s been married for 15 years and is the mother of two girls, Isabella and Camilla, but she still can’t buy a bottle of wine without showing her ID. “You’ve got to be the luckiest man in the world, convincing this beautiful woman to marry you in here,” my sister says, smiling. “You’ve got that right!” I keep my arm around Carole and kiss her cheek. “Honey, did you talk to Bob?” Carole asks. “I saw him this morning. He sent his good wishes, why?” “Did he tell you what he did?” “No, what?” “He sent a personal messenger to my house last night to deliver a wedding card, and inside there were two cashiers’ checks, each for five thousand dollars.” “Wow! What a thoughtful, generous friend.” “Can you believe it? I thought he didn’t want you to get married.” “That was before he knew how extraordinary you were.” “I sent him a thank you letter last night. Please tell him I’m grateful. What should I do with the money?” “Put it in the bank,” I tell her. “Geez, they should’ve at least done some decorating in here for the wedding,” Christina remarks. She’s looking around at the sterile setting of the visiting room as we all sit, side by side, in a single row of the plastic chairs placed in straight lines throughout the room. The polished floor shines. Six vending machines buzz under the bright, fluorescent lights. “It’s too bad they couldn’t hold the wedding outside,” my mom says. “It’s such a beautiful summer day, perfect for a garden wedding.” “We’re just happy that the day is finally here,” Carole says. “I’ll marry you again when I come home,” I promise Carole while looking into her eyes. “Honey, that must be the man who’s going to marry us,” Carole gestures to an older man in a black robe who walks in with Mr. Jones, my unit manager. The white-haired man carries a black leather portfolio, and he’s shaking hands with the two guards who supervise us from the platform. “Is he a chaplain?” my mom asks. “I think he’s a justice of the peace,” I answer. “No,” Carole corrects me. “He’s the deputy mayor of New Hanover Township. That’s where I sent the check for our marriage license.” The deputy mayor comes over to introduce himself, presents us with papers to sign, and instructs Carole about how to get an official copy of our marriage certificate. We’re the first couple to be married. He stands in front of us and begins the ceremony. Mom and Christina flank us, smiling. I hold Carole’s hand, grinning as I listen to him recite the marital vows, asking us in turn whether we take each other, in sickness and in health, for better or worse, until death parts us. Carole fills my heart with her “I do,” and I say the same. We’re married. Finally I get to kiss my bride, the lovely Carole Santos. “I can’t believe they won’t give you any time alone,” Christina says. “That’s so cruel.” “The honeymoon’s going to have to wait,” I say. “We have the rest of our lives for our honeymoon,” Carole answers, kissing my cheek. My mom and sister sit with us for a while, and then graciously leave to give Carole and me the last hour together. We’re not alone. Four other couples also being married today sit with their families in the chairs around us waiting for their turn. “You’ve honored me today, Carole, making me as happy as I can possibly be.” “I love you, Michael.” “Someday I’ll buy you a house,” I promise. “Someday I’ll make you a home,” she adds. “In the meantime, ‘home’ will be wherever we are.  We’re in this together.” “This is forever,” I twist my silver wedding band. “There’s no place I’d rather be than with you.”
 Lieutenant Marks brings an end to our time together. Ms. Davis, an attractive young woman who looks out of place in a prison guard’s uniform, smiles as she escorts Carole and the other brides out. Mr. Rodriguez, a guard who sports a tattoo of an American flag on his forearm, strip searches the five grooms, side by side. The other prisoners and I dress and return to the compound, each with a new wedding ring on his finger. ****** On August 9, 2003, Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court delivers an extraordinary keynote speech at the American Bar Association’s annual convention in San Francisco. Carole sends me a copy of the text and highlights the parts she wants me to pay close attention to. I can’t believe what the Justice says to the nation’s lawyers. Justice Kennedy calls for prison reform, saying that America incarcerates too many people, that American prisoners often serve draconian sentences, and that a nation confident in its laws should not be afraid of compassion and mercy. “Michael,” Carole urges during our evening visit, “don’t you think you should at least try for clemency again, especially after what Justice Kennedy said in his speech?” “Baby, we can’t afford it. I’m not going to spend our money on an attorney when the odds are so far against us. President Bush isn’t going to commute my sentence.” “But you’ve done so much. No other prisoner has earned university degrees, served 16 years, and published books that universities from across the country use. You don’t have any history of violence and now you’re married. I’ll bet if the president knew about you, he’d commute your sentence.” “That’s the problem, he doesn’t know who I am. And unless I have a top legal team representing me, he’ll never know who I am. That’s one of the reasons we’re building the website. We need to attract lawyers who want to represent me because I’ve earned freedom, because they believe in me. Right now we don’t have the money to hire lawyers.” “But you could at least file a clemency petition on your own. We don’t need lawyers to fill out the petition and send it in. At least that way we’d have a chance.” “Okay,” I concede. “Print a blank petition and mail it to me. I’ll fill it out and we’ll collect some new supporting letters to file with it. But don’t get your hopes up on this. We need to keep preparing for 2013. That means I need to write, and you need to earn and save.” “I’m doing my part.”
 “Yes you are,” I squeeze her hand. “You’re wonderful.” ****** It’s Monday, November 17, 2003. Carole and I have been married for nearly five months when she comes to share her good news. When I walk toward her, she’s standing, wearing a glowing smile. The bright room is filled with other visitors, as noisy as a full auditorium. “I passed my real estate test.” “Congratulations!” I grab her in my arms, pull her close, and kiss her. “I told you all of your studying would pay off. How did you find out?” “I called the real estate board this morning. I got a 97 on my exam.” “Baby, you deserve to feel proud of yourself.”
 She’s smiling. “I’m so happy honey, because I did it for you.” When hundreds of people pack the visiting room, like today, some couples succeed in stealing a few extra kisses through the visit. I only kissed Carole when our visit began, as rules permit. That’s why I’m startled when the guard yells my name. “Santos!” he hollers. An immediate hush quiets the entire room with his outburst. I point my finger at my chest, making sure he’s yelling at me. “Come to the desk,” he orders. “But you didn’t do anything,” Carole objects as I stand and let go of her hands. “Let me see what he wants.” I walk through the columns and rows of visitors to approach the guard’s platform. “Lieutenant wants to see you,” he tells me. “Can’t it wait until after my visit?” “Now. Officer Ruiz will take you through the back.”
I don’t look back at Carole, but follow Officer Ruiz to the dressing room. My heart starts beating faster, as I’ve never known anything good to come from a talk with a lieutenant. “Where’s the lieutenant?” I inquire, looking around the empty room. “Not here,” Officer Ruiz says. “He wants to see you in his office.” “For what? What’s this about?” “I don’t know,” Officer Ruiz admits. “He called us and told us to escort you over.” “What about my visit?” “He terminated your visit. Put your hands behind your back. I’ve got to cuff you up.”    

The Benjamin Dixon Show
Episode 807 | Bloomberg's Racist, Classist Past | What Happened To Pete? | Moderates for Bernie

The Benjamin Dixon Show

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 10, 2020 31:19


*** Did you know that you are missing 50% of the show? Get the full hour by going to Patreon.com/TheBpDShow. Become a patron and get twice the show with NONE of the advertisements! ***Episode 807 |Michael Bloomberg is attempting to purchase our democracy. The Democratic establishment seems to be assisting him with this. But Bloomberg is not only an oligarch, he has a racist, classist, transphobic past that shows that he will not only serve the interests of his fellow oligarchs, but he will be a threat to minorities, poor people, and the LGBTQ community. --Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman on Twitter) found an amazing clip of Mayor Pete from just a year ago where he makes the case for socialism and expanding the Overton window to include everything that Sanders stands for. What happened to this Pete!? Which Pete is the real one? Does it even matter?--USA Today has an article out saying that Moderate Dems must consider Bernie Sanders because he is the candidate that can beat Trump. Thing is, the people want to beat Trump -- but the establishment players would rather lose with Bloomberg than win with Sanders.***** PATRONS ONLY SHOW PAST THIS POINT *****Michael Bloomberg purchasing this election is a unique threat to democracy and we need to start calling out all of the people who have shown that they are for sale. What's more, the argument about the Supreme Court picks carries little weight because of Bloomberg's conservatism. At best we'd get someone like Justice Kennedy. At worst, we could end up with another Scalia based on Bloomberg's harsh brand of conservatism. --Mayor Pete had a horrible weekend. Amy K thrashed him in the debates. New Hampshire ripped his soul at with the #WallStreetPete chant, and Joe Biden sonned him with a new ad that makes him sound as inexperienced as he is. Poor Peter. --Finally, Sanders has the movement to beat Trump. Anyone saying otherwise is a goddamned liar.

Spectrum
LGBT Employment Rights Cases before U.S. Supreme Court Explained

Spectrum

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 29, 2020 35:55


Three cases are pending before the Supreme Court of the United States that could have significant impacts on the employment rights of LGBT workers. Decisions will be issued before the Court recesses at the end of June. These cases will determine if the 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents employment discrimination based upon sexual orientation and transgender status. Lydia Lavelle, politician and law professor, breaks down these cases in plain English and gives us some context for these monumental decisions that could be issued at any time. Lavelle is mayor of Carrboro, North Carolina near Durham. When she was elected in 2013, she was the first openly-lesbian mayor in North Carolina. Lavelle also is a law professor at North Carolina Central University and one of her research areas has been the effects of anti-discrimination laws on LGBT people. She notes that currently states across the country have a patchwork of civil right laws and employment discrimination against the LGBT population is allowed in much of the nation. The cases, now pending before the Supreme Court, ask the Court to interpret Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status. Title VII bans discrimination based upon race, religion, national origin and sex. The question the Court is considering is whether the term “sex” applies to “sexual orientation” and “transgendered status.” If the Court rules in favor of this interpretation, then state discriminatory practices would be banned under preemptive federal law. LGBT civil rights would be upheld across the country. The cases were argued before the court in early October. These are the first LGBT rights cases to come before the court since the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy and the controversial appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Kennedy was the swing vote giving same-sex couples the right to marry by a 5 to 4 Supreme Court vote.

Good Law | Bad Law
Good Law | Bad Law - Morality, Impeachment and the Constitution: A Conversation w/ Peter Bayer

Good Law | Bad Law

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 27, 2019 100:05


Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Peter Bayer, a Professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law, to discuss morality, the Impeachment, and the Constitution.   In today’s episode, Aaron and Peter delve deep into an important and interesting conversation about liberty, fundamental fairness, Due Process and more; throughout, they specifically apply these ideas and their principles to President Trump, and his recent impeachment.  Peter and Aaron have a philosophical discussion on Kant and his categorical imperatives, Deontology, Originalism, and natural rights. The two debate what the Framers of the Constitution intended, they discuss the Magna Carta, natural law, the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell, legal and political theorists such as Blackstone and Locke, and examine Peter’s extensive article on these issues, “Deontological Originalism: Moral Truth, Liberty, and Constitutional ‘Due Process.’”   What is the role of the Constitution? What are its meanings? What is and is not considered moral? And how do we/should we think of ‘the greater good?”   An expert in jurisprudence, Peter earned both his J.D. and his M.A. in Sociology from NYU. His article on today’s subject matter is a legal commentary on the principles of Originalism and Deontology, arguing that given the principles of Originalism, the Constitution mandates that any governmental act is unconstitutional if it is immoral.  Peter refers to these ideas as “Deontological Originalism,” asserting that both the Founders of this Nation and the Reconstruction Congress believed in natural rights that derived from principles of natural law. Aaron and Peter contemplate this through the lens of 2019 and the Impeachment, considering Trump’s definitions of “fair” and drawing comparisons to Fraud’s theory of the ID.   After studying at NYU, Professor Bayer earned his LL.M. from Harvard Law. Before his time at Boyd, Peter served as Assistant Professor and Director of the Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing Program at St. Tomas University School of Law in Miami. In addition to teaching stints at Boston College Law School, the University of Baltimore Law School, and the University of Miami School of Law, Peter worked as Senior Patient Advocate for Quantum Health Resources, Trial Attorney for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Staff Attorney for the Center for Advocacy, Research, and Planning. He also clerked for the Honorable Clifford Scott Green, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Professor Bayer teaches Lawyering Process, Jurisprudence, Administrative Law, Employment Discrimination, and Judicial Writing.     To check out Professor Bayer’s article on Deontological Originalism, please click here. To learn more about Professor Bayer, please visit his bio page on UNLV’s website here. To read Justice Kennedy’s opinion on the Obergefell decision, please click here.     Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Peter Bayer     Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

The weDignify Podcast
056 - If you disagree with me, you hate me?!

The weDignify Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 14, 2019 41:52


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  

Heritage Events Podcast
Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court

Heritage Events Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 15, 2019 64:31


Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court reveals what really happened during last year's confirmation, including never-before-released details of every aspect of the process. Exciting new stories include: Justice Kennedy's retirement, how Kavanaugh was chosen, how his explosive opening statement to the committee was composed, what Melania Trump really thought of Christine Blasey Ford, the coordination between Democrats and the anti-Kavanaugh forces on the Left, and the behind-the-scenes chaos between Senators Flake and Coons as they hammered out the FBI investigation. They also weave in the stories of major confirmation battles of recent decades, illustrating what we have learned from fights over nominees like Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas to help get nominees like Brett Kavanaugh across the finish line.Mollie and Carrie are two insiders with unparalleled access to the major players in this national drama. They have conducted over one hundred interviews, spanning hundreds of hours, and speaking with President Trump, several Supreme Court justices, dozens of senators, and all the key figures in this battle. Join us for a discussion of their highly-anticipated book, which promises to be the definitive account of this historic event. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Legal(ish) Podcast
Episode 13: America, You in Danger Girl!

The Legal(ish) Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 8, 2018 77:06


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

The City Club of Cleveland Podcast
September 27, 2018 - Separation of Powers: Framework for Freedom

The City Club of Cleveland Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 27, 2018 60:00


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.

The Patriot News Podcast
Ninth Circuit Court: Open carry is Constitutionally guaranteed and Russia.......

The Patriot News Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 27, 2018 33:00


The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of a man who sued Hawaii for the right to open carry.  This is most likely headed to SCOTUS.   This could be huge especially with Justice Kennedy retiring from the bench.  Eitherway it is a huge win!  We know.  The Russia thing is getting pretty old.  We do agree but this weird side show seeem to keep rolling on.   Trump also threatened to pull security clearances from several people.  Is it the right thing to do?  It is his right. YouTube bans Alex Jones for 90 days and Twitter IS shadow banning conversatives.  The cyberwar rolls on. Visit our Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/patriotnews

The Christian Outlook | Topics for Today's Believers
Don Kroah with Everett Piper on Justice Kennedy's Dangerous Ideology

The Christian Outlook | Topics for Today's Believers

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 25, 2018 13:09


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.

TrumpWatch with Jesse Lent
Which 1987 Supreme Court nominee is Brett Kavanaugh? (Mark Walsh)

TrumpWatch with Jesse Lent

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 11, 2018 24:04


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.

Bloomberg Surveillance
Conservative Court Would Strike Down Progressive Legislation

Bloomberg Surveillance

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 9, 2018 31:11


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

Townhall Review | Conservative Commentary On Today's News
First Amendment Victories and the High Court After Kennedy

Townhall Review | Conservative Commentary On Today's News

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2018 41:16


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.

The Christian Outlook | Topics for Today's Believers
The Anthony Kennedy Seat and the Future of the High Court

The Christian Outlook | Topics for Today's Believers

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2018 40:56


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.

The Democrats Republican Podcast
Justice Kennedy and his tarnish legacy

The Democrats Republican Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2018 2:25


Super late and not editiled but I wanted to publish it anyway. Dont worry, I'm getting better New Episode Tomorrow --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/DemocratsRepublican/support

The PodChat Show
Dog Days of Summer Pick 'Em

The PodChat Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 3, 2018 66:53


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!

Knowledge@Wharton
How Justice Kennedy's Departure Will Reshape SCOTUS

Knowledge@Wharton

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 2, 2018 32:19


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.

Black On Both Sides
Unchecked Balances #BoBs004

Black On Both Sides

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 2, 2018 82:17


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]

Plastic Cup Politics
Ep. 13. Leni Riefenstahl's Tender Box

Plastic Cup Politics

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 2, 2018 63:53


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.

The Patriot News Podcast
SCOTUS and "Mad" Max Waters. Welcome to Thunderdome!

The Patriot News Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 29, 2018 60:00


First, let's get this out of the way.  Maxine Waters is a quack.  She has an IQ of a hummingbird, but she does have a big following of stupid lemmings. She is calling for political violence against people on the right.  Look at what happened to US Tranportation Secretary Elaine Chao.  She was ambushed in her driveway by a bunch of thugs.  The Democrats have been slow to condemn the dim-witted Waters.  Well guys, if you want to dance then lets dance.  It isn't going to go down the way you think it is.   3UP is united on this.  OK, now to the real news.  A bunch of decisions came down from SCOTUS.  Public unions can not force people to pay them extorsion money for just having a job.  Clinics do not have to advertise state sponsored abortions in California.  The travel ban is Consitutional.  In my opinion they got a lot right this time.  What will the others think?  Tune in and find out! The biggest news to come out is Justice Kennedy is retiring.  That election looks pretty important now especially since Ginsberg is old enough to see the invention of the printing press.    Final Plug!  Google shut down us on our ad revenue because they are bitches.  Help fight back by giving to our Patreon.  https://www.patreon.com/patriotnews.  Any little bit helps keeps us on the air! Oh yeah.  You can call in!

The Armstrong and Getty Show (Bingo)
It's Not the End of the World!

The Armstrong and Getty Show (Bingo)

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2018


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.

The Spew on WTAM
The Spew 6-28-18: Justice Kennedy Retiring, Joe Jackson Passes, Wind Turbines

The Spew on WTAM

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2018


Triv and Lanigan are in discussing the announcement of Justice Kennedy retiring at the end of July and what it could mean for the Supreme Court going forward. Joe Jackson passed away at the age of 89 yesterday, would the Jackson 5 have made it without his pushing? Wind turbines could be on Lake Erie in the future, would that be a good thing for the area? Plus, robocalls and concert talk!

The Daily Standard Podcast - Your conservative source for analysis of the news shaping US politics and world events

This is an archived copy of The Daily Standard podcast. Please note that advertisements, links and other specific references within the content may be out of date.

The Real Side with Joe Messina
SCOTUS rulings, Justice Kennedy to retire, & Climate change facts

The Real Side with Joe Messina

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2018 175:00


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?

The Intellectual Saviors
Episode 226 - SCOTUS Can Lick My ANUS!

The Intellectual Saviors

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2018 79:52


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!

Townhall Review | Conservative Commentary On Today's News
Bowyer on Justice Kennedy: It's Time to Swap a Pivot for a Cornerstone

Townhall Review | Conservative Commentary On Today's News

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2018 1:00


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

The Christian Outlook | Topics for Today's Believers
Protecting Our Kids in a Toxic Culture

The Christian Outlook | Topics for Today's Believers

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 15, 2017 39:48


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.

NARAL's The Morning After
More calls for Justice Sharen Kennedy's recusal

NARAL's The Morning After

Play Episode Listen Later May 19, 2017 30:54


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.

NARAL's The Morning After
Justice Sharon Kennedy must recuse herself

NARAL's The Morning After

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 17, 2017 29:54


This week, Gabe, Jaime and Randi discuss Ohio Supreme Court Justice Sharon Kennedy, who participated in a fundraiser for Right to Life of Greater Toledo this morning. This creates a conflict of interest with upcoming cases. Two cases involving abortion providers will come before the state Supreme Court this year. Toledo's last abortion clinic, Capital Care Network of Toledo, is challenging the state's transfer agreement requirements. Separately, Cleveland abortion clinic Preterm is challenging abortion restrictions added into the 2013 state budget as violations of Ohio's single-subject requirement for legislation. In a release, NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio Executive Director Kellie Copeland said: Justice Sharon Kennedy should recuse herself from any case related to legislation that was proposed and supported by the anti-abortion groups that endorsed her candidacy, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. By participating in an organization's fundraising event, Justice Kennedy has cast serious doubt on her ability remain impartial. Ohioans must be able to have faith in their government's protection of rights without bias.

The Daily Standard Podcast - Your conservative source for analysis of the news shaping US politics and world events
ADAM WHITE: Don't Let Justice Kennedy's "Federalism" Talk Fool You About ObamaCare

The Daily Standard Podcast - Your conservative source for analysis of the news shaping US politics and world events

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 5, 2015 9:45


This is an archived copy of The Daily Standard podcast. Please note that advertisements, links and other specific references within the content may be out of date.