Podcasts about justice ketanji brown jackson

Sarah Isgur, David French, and Kannon Shanmugam again reunite for the annual Paul, Weiss summer associate live recording. The three discuss Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's mysterious jurisprudence, political pressure on the Supreme Court bench, and firmly bound, braggadocious briefs.Plus: billable hours, a (not) blockbuster term, and Sarah's insecurity over Texas' quaint size. The Agenda:—The Biter and Aqua Girl—Trump v. Casa, injunctions, and class actions—Pushback on Justice Jackson as the #Resistance justice (and how to write an email)—Splitting the baby on paper vs. digital cert petitions—Guess where Kannon puts his Supreme Court quill pens—It wasn't a blockbuster term—Circuit court crash course—Don't mess with Texas—My big fat 9th Circuit Court—Free speech or parental rights? United States v. Skrmetti and Mahmoud v. Taylor This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law.Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control.Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries.Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Trump isn't happy with Vladimir Putin as the war between Ukraine and Russia continues. The president doesn't like all the questions about Jeffrey Epstein. There's a problem with the prison video near Epstein's cell. Trump is trying to reindustrialize America. Former Trump foe is now singing his praises. What is the most streamed show? MLB, we have a problem with the All-Star Game last night. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson shares her Supreme Court knowledge. Andrew Cuomo, man of the people? Zohran Mamdani is a rich communist because aren't they all? Security incident at the White House yesterday? France struggled with its Bastille Day parade. Here come the Gay Games! Sunny Hostin then and now when it comes to the Epstein list. 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED 00:39 Trump Explains Dealing with Putin 04:34 Trump Asked about Epstein & Pam Bondi 08:04 Tim Burchett on Trump & Epstein List 09:09 Trump Asked Again about Epstein 14:24 Wired Magazine on Epstein Prison Video 22:24 Mike Rowe Wants America to Reindustrialize Again 28:32 Ken Langone's Thoughts on Trump Now 31:04 Chewing the Fat 48:14 All-Stars Game 52:56 Jasmine Crockett on Texas Racism 54:50 Trump Says AOC & Jasmine Crockett have Low IQ 56:18 Maxwell Frost on "Genocide" by the Trump Admin. 1:00:05 Tim Walz Calls ICE "Gestapo" 1:05:49 Ketanji Brown Jackson on "What Keeps her Up at Night?" 1:07:15 Ketanji Brown Jackson on SCOTUS Expectations 1:13:30 De-Transitioner Speaks Out 1:17:43 Andrew Cuomo, 'Man of the People' 1:21:38 Zohran Mamdani is Rich? 1:26:18 France Bastille Parade Issues 1:28:26 Pat Gray BINGO! Winner 1:30:05 Gay Games out West! 1:33:11 Flashback: Sunny Hostin on the Epstein List Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

National security expert Juliette Kayyem discusses millions of undocumented immigrants no longer eligible for bond hearings, according to ICE. Plus, the misinformation/psychological warfare at play in the Israel-Iran war.Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Mass, discusses a federal court certifying a nationwide class action protecting babies from Trump's birthright citizenship order, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaking out.Ken Casey, Dropkick Murphys frontman, joins to discuss their new album "For the People," and his repeated warnings that the Trump administration is engaging in a class war.David Folkenflik, NPR media correspondent, on the rescission efforts in Washington to pull funding for foreign aid and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.Farmers Michael Montuori of Allandale Farm and Danielle Andrews of The Food Project join to discuss urban farming, connecting communities to their food sources, and impacts of federal funding cuts to food benefits.

These past few days in American history have been a test of endurance for everyone following the legal odyssey of Donald Trump. Listeners, as of today, July 16, 2025, the former president has remained right at the center of an extraordinary legal saga. Let me walk you through what's unfolded—because the courtrooms, from Manhattan to Florida to Georgia, have been abuzz with critical developments.Let's get right to the main event from the past year: the Manhattan criminal trial. Back on April 15 of last year, in People v. Donald J. Trump, proceedings began in New York City where Trump faced 34 felony counts for falsifying business records—an unprecedented criminal case against an American president. The details emerged rapidly, and less than two months later, on May 30, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts. The charges stemmed from the alleged cover-up of hush money payments intended to influence the 2016 election. Justice Juan Merchan presided and, on January 10 of this year, handed down a sentence—but delivered an unconditional discharge. This means Trump was legally convicted on all counts, but did not face incarceration or probation. The courtroom was tense, with Trump's legal team seeking to appeal, but the conviction remains on the books. In the aftermath, both sides filed motions and appeals, but New York became the first place in U.S. history where a former president stood convicted of felony crimes.The legal battles didn't stop there. Down in Florida, in the Southern District, Trump faced federal charges for handling classified documents—32 counts of willfully retaining national defense information, five counts of obstruction, plus charges for making false statements. Trump's team caught a major break on July 15 of last year: Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges, was improperly appointed and funded, leading to the dismissal of the indictment. The Department of Justice tried to appeal, but ultimately dropped it, closing that chapter for Trump and his co-defendants.Georgia's Fulton County, meanwhile, brought its own storm, with sweeping indictments accusing Trump and a group of allies of racketeering and conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. Even as these state charges wind through the courts, each defendant is trying various legal maneuvers—Mark Meadows, for example, took his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to move it to federal court, but was turned down. Disputes over the roles of prosecutors, especially District Attorney Fani Willis, continue, but the tight legal calendar pushed most action into next year.Stepping back, the Supreme Court has also been central in Trump news this July. Just last week, on July 8, the Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with executive orders to reduce the federal workforce—a case that isn't directly criminal but dramatically affects Trump's influence over government operations. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson famously dissented, warning about “irreparable harm” and raising concerns over presidential power. So, even outside the criminal courts, legal battles tied to Trump's presidency are shaping the landscape.Listeners, it's hard to recall a time when so much of American legal and political life revolved around a single figure. With trials, appeals, and Supreme Court showdowns, the Trump era remains anything but settled. Thanks for tuning in—don't miss next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production; for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Medicaid Act's “any qualified provider” provision unambiguously confer a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider?The case was decided on June 26, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) of the Medicaid Act does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U-S-C § 1983. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.Federal statutes create individual rights only in “atypical cases,” and 42 U-S-C § 1983 provides causes of action for deprivation of “rights,” not mere “benefits” or “interests.” To prove an enforceable right, plaintiffs must show the statute clearly and unambiguously uses “rights-creating terms” with “an unmistakable focus” on individuals. This is a “stringent” and “demanding” test that spending-power statutes are especially unlikely to satisfy because spending-power legislation is “much in the nature of a contract” requiring States' voluntary and knowing consent to private suits.Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) lacks the required clear rights-creating language. The provision states that Medicaid plans must “provide that…any individual eligible for medical assistance…may obtain such assistance from any…qualified” provider. This language addresses state duties and may benefit providers and patients, but lacks the clear “rights-creating language” found in the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act provisions upheld in Talevski. Congress knows how to create clear rights, as FNHRA shows by giving nursing-home residents “the right to choose a personal attending physician.” The any-qualified-provider provision contains no such language. The provision's exceptions confirm this reading—States may exclude providers “convicted of a felony” and “determine” which convictions qualify, which makes sense if the provision addresses state duties to the federal government but creates problems if it confers individual rights.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion arguing that the Court should reexamine more broadly its § 1983 jurisprudence, which, he claimed, bears little resemblance to the statute as originally understood.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, arguing that the any-qualified-provider provision readily creates an enforceable right under a faithful application of the Court's unambiguous-conferral test. She criticized the majority's requirement that Congress mirror the specific language of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act rather than apply the established test for whether a statute unambiguously confers rights, and she warned that the decision continues a pattern of weakening Reconstruction-era civil rights protections.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

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

It's been another extraordinary week in the ongoing saga of Donald Trump's court battles—one that has seen major developments on multiple legal fronts as the former president continues to dominate headlines and court dockets. I want to take you right into the action of the past few days and give you a sense of just how frenetic, and consequential, these court proceedings have become.Just days ago, the Supreme Court handed a significant victory to Donald Trump's administration by allowing his executive order for sweeping reductions in the federal workforce to move forward for now. This order, issued back in February, directed government agencies to prepare for mass layoffs—so-called “reductions in force”—across the federal bureaucracy. Labor unions, local governments, and advocacy groups were quick to challenge it, concerned about the potential dismantling of large swaths of government operations. Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco initially blocked Trump's plan, but the justices, in a brief opinion, sided with the administration, at least temporarily. The order remains in effect pending appeals, and the Supreme Court's decision, with only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, means federal agencies are once again on notice to prepare for significant changes. Justice Jackson, in her 15-page dissent, warned of “irreparable harm” to the structure of the federal government if Trump's plan is executed before the courts fully resolve the legal questions.Meanwhile, another Trump executive action faced a major legal setback. In New Hampshire, a federal court blocked Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the United States. Civil rights organizations including the ACLU and Legal Defense Fund challenged Trump's executive order just days after a Supreme Court ruling that had opened the door for partial enforcement of the controversial policy. On July 10, the federal judge not only issued a preliminary injunction halting the order but also certified a nationwide class to ensure all affected children are protected. According to Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, this ruling reaffirmed the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for all babies born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents' status.And that's not all. The New York criminal case against Donald Trump remains active on the court calendars, with a slew of filings, decisions, and orders continuing through this year. Sentencing audio from early January made headlines and provided a rare public window into proceedings that are as closely watched as they are contentious.With each ruling, appeal, and legal maneuver, the stakes grow higher—not just for Donald Trump, but for the nation's legal and political landscape. Whether it's the fate of thousands of federal workers, the citizenship status of newborns, or the outcome of high-profile criminal trials, Trump's time in the courtroom is shaping American life in real time.Thanks for tuning in, and make sure you come back next week for more updates. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Brian is gone for a couple of days.  This is an important rebroadcast of our May 5 report, but Justice Jackson made similar remarks at another conference last week, saying the "'State of our Democracy' keeps me up at night." The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for July 14, 2025Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Warns Judges, ‘The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy – on our system of government'At a Puerto Rico conference May 1st, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned judges that recent threats from the White house are “attacks on our democracy.”  We read a portion of her speech, and have a link to the full remarks.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:U.S. Supreme Court -  “Preserving Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law” Remarks by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson First Circuit Judicial Conference, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico May 1, 2025 | 8:00 PMPolitico - Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply condemns Trump's attacks on judgesThe Hill - Trump slams judges after ruling bars admin from using Alien Enemies Act to deport gangsPresident Donald Trump - Post of Truth Social After Judge Halts Deportations Under the Alien Enemies ActPolitico - Trump calls for impeachment of judge who tried to halt deportationsWhite House Advisor Stephen Miller - Multiple Attacks on Judges via X (scan down the page) Groups Taking Action:American Bar Association, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,  Stand Up America Coalition Please follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #AttacksonJudges #KetanjiBrownJackson #SCOTUS #USSupremeCourt

In this episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick sits down with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse to dissect the most recent Supreme Court term and its implications. They explore Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's emerging role and influence, the patterns of bias within the court that she's calling out, and the broader systemic issues facing the judiciary. Their conversation also delves into the “worst possible nominee” for a lifetime appointment to a US court of appeals, Emil Bove. Next, they tackle climate inaction, Democrats' failure to respond to the billionaire takeover of the Supreme Court, and why Senator Whitehouse is still optimistic about challenging, even fixing, these systems. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in an act of defiance is taking on the Trump Administration and her MAGA Supreme Court justices not only in her scorching dissents about the Court's complicity in having an uncontrollable President, but in her increasingly frequent public statements, including in the last 48 hours. Michael Popok explains why KBU's dissents are the shining torch we need at this pivotal moment in our democrac,y and she provides the blueprint to get us out of this mess. Over 2 million butts love TUSHY. Get 10% off Tushy with the code LEGALAF at https://hellotushy.com/LEGALAF! #tushypod Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick sits down with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse to dissect the most recent Supreme Court term and its implications. They explore Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's emerging role and influence, the patterns of bias within the court that she's calling out, and the broader systemic issues facing the judiciary. Their conversation also delves into the “worst possible nominee” for a lifetime appointment to a US court of appeals, Emil Bove. Next, they tackle climate inaction, Democrats' failure to respond to the billionaire takeover of the Supreme Court, and why Senator Whitehouse is still optimistic about challenging, even fixing, these systems. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick sits down with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse to dissect the most recent Supreme Court term and its implications. They explore Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's emerging role and influence, the patterns of bias within the court that she's calling out, and the broader systemic issues facing the judiciary. Their conversation also delves into the “worst possible nominee” for a lifetime appointment to a US court of appeals, Emil Bove. Next, they tackle climate inaction, Democrats' failure to respond to the billionaire takeover of the Supreme Court, and why Senator Whitehouse is still optimistic about challenging, even fixing, these systems. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Within the walls of the DOJ, there appears to be major unrest as NBC News has learned that Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino is considering leaving his job after a heated confrontation with Attorney General Pam Bondi over his frustration with how the Justice Department has handled the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Rep. Jamie Raskin joins The Weekend to talk about that and how the increased politicization of the Justice Department will impact the nation.Plus, Mahmoud Khalil also joins the Weekend to discuss his decision to file a claim against the Trump Administration after alleging he was falsely imprisoned, maliciously prosecuted and smeared as an antisemite as the government sought to deport him because of his role in campus protests. Then Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott and Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin tell The Weekend how they've helped bring crime down in their respective cities to the lowest they've seen in decades.

Logan Sekulow and Will Haynes are joined by Jordan Sekulow to discuss Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson making the media rounds lately. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/663/29

On todays show James, Dwayne and Tim Green (the Brain Trust) talk about  the aftermath of the Guadalupe flood, with 120 confirmed deaths and over 170 people still missing. The conversation shifted to the Supreme Court, criticizing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for her incompetence and political bias. They also discussed the Epstein case, speculating on the national security implications and the potential for prosecutions involving high-profile figures like Brennan and Comey. The group debated the effectiveness of tariffs in raising revenue and the impact of the recent budget bill, highlighting the need for strategic decision-making in governance. The discussion centered on the U.S. imposing tariffs on copper exports, citing national security and competitive advantages. Speaker 1 criticized the tariff, suggesting it should be replaced with deregulation to boost domestic production. The conversation also touched on international relations, particularly with Brazil, and the potential for reciprocal tariffs. Additionally, they discussed a federal court case involving a Maryland man, Garcia, charged with serious crimes and the complications arising from his immigration status. The Biden doctor's refusal to testify about President Biden's mental capacity was also debated, highlighting issues of executive privilege and patient confidentiality. Don't miss it!

Logan Sekulow and Will Haynes are joined by Jordan Sekulow to discuss Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson making the media rounds lately. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/663/29

On this full episode of LARRY, we discuss John Brennan's complete and total MELTDOWN on MSNBC, Scott Jennings going ROGUE on CNN in a fiery one vs 1,000,000 face off on the OBBB lies, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's continued humiliation, and MUCH, much more! SHOP OUR MERCH: https://store.townhallmedia.com/ BUY A LARRY MUG: https://store.townhallmedia.com/products/larry-mug Watch LARRY with Larry O'Connor LIVE — Monday-Thursday at 12PM Eastern on YouTube, Facebook, & Rumble! Find LARRY with Larry O'Connor wherever you get your podcasts! SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7i8F7K4fqIDmqZSIHJNhMh?si=814ce2f8478944c0&nd=1&dlsi=e799ca22e81b456f APPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/larry/id1730596733 Become a Townhall VIP Member today and use promo code LARRY for 50% off: https://townhall.com/subscribe?tpcc=poddescription https://townhall.com/ https://rumble.com/c/c-5769468 https://www.facebook.com/townhallcom/ https://www.instagram.com/townhallmedia/ https://twitter.com/townhallcomBecome a Townhall VIP member with promo code "LARRY": https://townhall.com/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The show opens with additional thoughts on White House doctor Kevin O'Connor choosing to plead the 5th and claim doctor-patient confidentiality. Unfortunately, that last isn't really applicable, and, as we mentioned yesterday, providing full immunity wipes out the former. Attorney Alan Dershowitz says there is definitely and Epstein file because he needed to use it to defend himself. However, in so doing, he had to sign a non-disclosure, so he cannot reveal any names. Batya Ungar-Sargon agrees with my premise that it's a myth to believe Americans will not do the work that illegals are doing. It's a fallacy that keeps wages down and hurts the working class. This brings me to a literary moment about Milton's, “Paradise Lost,” where Lucifer said he would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven. It dovetails nicely into a comment from Stephen Miller about the desire to flood the Western nations with illegals in order to crush them. Sean Spicer weighs-in on how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn't know the difference between writing a legal argument and a Op-Ed. While we are on judicial activism, another district judge has decided anyone born here from illegals belongs in a protected class and has found a workaround to the SCOTUS ruling from a week ago. Dollar Store 44 refused to acknowledge that the calls for blood in the streets is coming from his own party. Stacey Abrams spreads fear porn. Marc Elias is worried about the call to criminally investigate James Comey and John Brennan. This leads to a discussion over color revolutions. We close with three positive items: Trump is imposing a 50% tariff on Brazil, Marco Rubio is imposing sanctions on the UN's Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese and we just locked in a deal for the US to be Germany's single-largest provider of liquified natural gas. Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR,  TRUTH Social and YouTube by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!!

In this case, the court considered this issue: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, does a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect former employees who neither hold nor desire a job at the time of an employer's alleged act of discrimination. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion of the Court.Title 1 of the A-D-A makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against a “qualified individual” based on disability regarding compensation and other employment matters. The statute defines a “qualified individual” as someone who "can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” The present-tense verbs—“holds,” “desires,” and “can perform”—signal that the law protects individuals able to perform a job they currently hold or seek when discrimination occurs, not retirees who neither hold nor desire employment. The statute's definition of “reasonable accommodation,” which includes job restructuring and modifying facilities for employees, reinforces this interpretation by referencing accommodations that make sense only for current employees or job applicants, not retirees.The A-D-A's structure further supports this reading through its examples of discrimination in Section 12112(b), such as “qualification standards” and “employment tests,” which clearly aim to protect job holders and seekers rather than retirees. Additionally, comparing Title 1 with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act reveals that while Title VII protects “employees” without temporal qualification, the A-D-A's use of “qualified individual” linked to present-tense verbs indicates protection for current job holders or seekers only. The Court's precedent in Cleveland v Policy Management Systems Corporation anticipated that someone may fall outside the A-D-A's protections if she can no longer perform the job.Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, expressing concern about litigants changing their arguments after the Court grants certiorari.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, arguing that Title 1's prohibition on disability discrimination should not cease when an employee retires.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sotomayor in parts, arguing that the majority misreads Title 1 by viewing it through “the distorted lens of pure textualism,” incorrectly using the qualified individual definition as a temporal limit it was never designed to be, and thereby rendering meaningless the A-D-A's protections for disabled workers' retirement benefits just when those protections matter most.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” a new poll shows that a majority of Americans don't believe the government's explanation of Jeffrey Epstein's death. Even the Trump administration is now trying to cover it up, and Americans aren't buying it. Then, one of Joe Biden's doctors from his time as president has pleaded the Fifth in a congressional hearing when asked if he knew about Biden's mental decline. Next, the Supreme Court justices are infighting after Justice Sonia Sotomayor was left confused by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent. Finally, former staff members for New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani are not the most moral of individuals.   Today's Guests: Sara is joined by Jason Buttrill, head writer and chief researcher for Glenn Beck, and Blaze News editor in chief Matthew Peterson.   Today's Sponsors:   Birch Gold: Just text my name, SARA, to the number 989898, and Birch Gold will send you a FREE info kit on gold.   CraftCo. Flying Ace Spirits: Buy online at http://www.flyingacespirits.com and use code BLAZE for free shipping. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Send us a textDemocracy hangs in the balance as American institutions face unprecedented challenges. In this gripping examination of contemporary crises, Darrell McClain takes listeners through the devastating Camp Mystic flood tragedy in Texas that claimed over 100 lives, revealing both the heroism of everyday Americans and the systemic failures that made this disaster worse than it should have been.The episode moves beyond partisan responses to tragedy, urging a return to our shared humanity. "Mourning is not a political act," McClain reminds us, pushing back against the reflexive grabbing of talking points and hashtags that too often replaces genuine grief and substantive action.From Texas floodwaters, the conversation shifts to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's emerging role as the Supreme Court's most independent voice. Her blistering dissents on executive power—warning that "our beloved constitutional republic will be no more" if current trends continue—have provoked unprecedented pushback from other justices. McClain contextualizes these judicial battles as fundamental to the separation of powers that protects American democracy.Most urgently, the episode confronts the administration's threats to prosecute CNN for standard journalism—a precedent that would fundamentally alter press freedom in America. Drawing historical comparisons to previous attempts to silence media critics, McClain warns: "When truth becomes a crime, we all eventually become criminals." This isn't merely about defending one news outlet but preserving the constitutional cornerstone that enables all other freedoms.Through these interconnected crises, the episode delivers a powerful message: democracy requires more than voting; it demands our constant vigilance, civic courage, and willingness to stand for constitutional principles even when—especially when—doing so isn't politically convenient.Are you ready to move beyond partisan talking points and engage with the substantive threats facing American democracy? Listen now to understand what's truly at stake and how we might still preserve our constitutional republic for future generations. Support the show

The Supreme Court has upheld President Donald Trump's executive order targeting the federal workforce. The decision opens the door to massive layoffs and restructuring across key agencies like the EPA, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a forceful dissent. Critics warn of unchecked executive power. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this case, the court considered this issue: When revoking supervised release and imposing a prison sentence, may a district court consider the sentencing factors in 18 U-S-C § 3553(a)(2)(A)—namely, “the seriousness of the offense,” “promoting respect for the law,” and “just punishment”—even though these factors are not explicitly referenced in the supervised release statute?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that in deciding whether to revoke a term of supervised release, a district court may not consider the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, or provide just punishment for the offense when revoking supervised release. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.When determining whether to revoke supervised release, district courts must consider eight of the ten general sentencing factors listed in 18 U-S-C § 3553(a). The statute specifically excludes § 3553(a)(2)(A), which covers retribution for the defendant's underlying criminal offense. This omission creates a strong negative inference under the well-established principle that expressing certain items in a list excludes others not mentioned. The statutory structure reinforces this interpretation, as neighboring provisions governing other types of sentences explicitly require courts to consider all § 3553(a) factors, while the supervised release provisions uniquely exclude retribution.This exclusion aligns with supervised release's rehabilitative purpose in the criminal justice system. Unlike fines, probation, and imprisonment, which serve as primary punishments, supervised release provides postconfinement assistance to ease defendants' transition back into society. Courts must therefore focus on forward-looking sentencing goals—deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation—rather than backward-looking retribution. District courts may consider the nature and circumstances of the original offense only as they relate to these permissible purposes, not as grounds for additional punishment based on the offense's seriousness.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that courts should not consider retribution for any purpose in supervised release proceedings.Justice Jackson authored a concurring opinion, agreeing with the outcome but criticizing the majority's discussion of what constitutes “offense” as unnecessary and confusing.Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, arguing that the omission of § 3553(a)(2)(A) merely makes its consideration discretionary rather than forbidden and warning that the majority's interpretation creates impractical requirements for sentencing judges.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California regulations that require automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of California regulations that require automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles because invalidating the regulations would likely redress their monetary injuries from decreased fuel sales. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The California regulations force automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles, thereby reducing demand for gasoline and other liquid fuels. Article III standing requires showing injury in fact, causation, and redressability—meaning the plaintiff must demonstrate actual harm caused by the defendant that judicial relief would likely fix. When government regulation of one business predictably causes downstream economic injuries to linked businesses, commonsense economic principles support finding that invalidating the regulation would likely redress those injuries by removing the regulatory impediment to the injured party's sales.Record evidence confirms that invalidating the regulations would likely redress the fuel producers' injuries, including: California's own estimates showing the regulations would cause substantial reductions in gasoline demand exceeding $10 billion by 2030; California's statements that the regulations are “critical” for emissions reductions and that without them fewer electric vehicles would be sold; EPA's affirmation that California “needs” these standards; and five automakers' intervention predicting that absent the regulations, competitors would sell fewer electric vehicles to gain market advantage. The Court rejected arguments that fuel producers needed expert affidavits or declarations from automakers to establish redressability, explaining that requiring such evidence would improperly make standing depend on alignment between plaintiffs and regulated third parties.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion arguing that the Court should have vacated and remanded for the D.C. Circuit to reconsider based on corrected facts about when the regulations expire.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion arguing the Court applies standing doctrine inconsistently by accepting commonsense inferences for business plaintiffs while demanding more evidence from civil rights plaintiffs.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Trump’s Big Beautiful has been sent back to the House as Republican leadership insists it will be passed by July 4th. New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is a total Marxist nutjob. // Josh Hammer unpacks the implications of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling striking down nationwide injunctions and why Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a joke. // Conservatives scored several parental rights victories during this year’s Supreme Court term.

Trump's comprehensive legislation package is advancing through Congress with a focus on tax cuts, border security funding, and military readiness, while including controversial Medicaid cuts as legislators make difficult trade-offs to achieve progress.• The "One Big Beautiful Bill" represents the first major legislative advancement in nearly four years• Chuck Schumer removed the bill's name in what many consider a petty political move• The Supreme Court ruled that lower court judges can no longer issue nationwide injunctions against federal policies• Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered a rare public rebuke to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her majority opinion• A $14.6 billion healthcare fraud operation was uncovered spanning multiple countries with 324 defendants including 96 medical professionals• Two Idaho firefighters were killed in a premeditated ambush while responding to a brush fire• Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez faces criticism after evidence emerged she grew up in wealthy Westchester County rather than the Bronx as she claims• Jeff Bezos's $50 million three-day wedding celebration highlighted the contradiction of climate-conscious celebrities arriving on private jets• The University of Pennsylvania has complied with presidential mandates on transgender athletes in sports, stripping Lia Thomas of titles and reinstating Riley Gaines's proper rankingsSupport the showDON'T WAIT FOR THE NEXT EMERGENCY, PLUS, SAVE 15%: https://www.twc.health/elsa#ifounditonamazon https://a.co/ekT4dNOTRY AUDIBLE PLUS: https://amzn.to/3vb6Rw3Elsa's Books: https://www.amazon.com/~/e/B01E1VFRFQDesign Like A Pro: https://canva.7eqqol.net/xg6Nv...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can retailers who would sell a new tobacco product seek judicial review of the FDA's denial of a manufacturer's marketing application under the Tobacco Control Act?The case was decided on June 20, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the Tobacco Control Act's provision that “any person adversely affected” by the FDA's denial of a marketing application may seek judicial review extends to retailers who would sell the new tobacco product, not just the manufacturers who applied for approval. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The phrase “adversely affected” is a term of art in administrative law that the Court has consistently interpreted broadly. When Congress uses variations of this phrase across different statutes, the Court presumes it carries the same meaning as in the Administrative Procedure Act—covering anyone “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute.” Congress reinforced this broad interpretation by using “any person” rather than limiting review to “the applicant.” The Court's precedents from other contexts, including employment discrimination and fair housing cases, confirm that “adversely affected” encompasses more than just the direct recipient of agency action. Retailers face a direct, significant impact from denial orders because they lose the opportunity to profit from selling the product and face criminal penalties if they sell it without authorization.The statutory structure confirms Congress intended different scopes for different provisions. While the Act limits challenges to withdrawal of existing approvals to only “the holder of the application,” it uses the broader “any person adversely affected” language for initial denials. This deliberate use of materially different terms creates a presumption that Congress intended different meanings. The FDA's arguments focusing on the application process and confidentiality provisions cannot override the plain language Congress chose for the judicial review provision.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, arguing that retailers fall outside the statute's zone of interests because the premarket approval scheme involves only manufacturers and the FDA, with no mechanism for retailer participation.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Join Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway and RealClearInvestigations Senior Writer Mark Hemingway as they discuss declining patriotism in America, analyze Sen. Thom Tillis' retirement announcement, break down the Supreme Court majority's scathing rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and review F1.If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

Join Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway and RealClearInvestigations Senior Writer Mark Hemingway as they discuss declining patriotism in America, analyze Sen. Tom Tillis' retirement announcement, break down the Supreme Court majority's scathing rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and review F1. If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give […]

Join Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway and RealClearInvestigations Senior Writer Mark Hemingway as they discuss declining patriotism in America, analyze Sen. Thom Tillis' retirement announcement, break down the Supreme Court majority's scathing rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and review F1.If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

Ruth Marcus, a contributor to The New Yorker and a former columnist for The Washington Post and the author of Supreme Ambition: Brett Kavanaugh and the Conservative Takeover (Simon & Schuster, 2019), talks about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and takes stock of what the Supreme Court's latest decisions mean for the identity of the court and the ability of judges to check executive power. 

How are the nation's most elite universities navigating the Trump administration? Harvard was recently been informed by the Trump administration that the school has violated federal civil rights law over how it treats Jewish and Israeli students. Allegations of civil rights violations are just the latest troubles for the Ivy Leagues, as Columbia University received a formal warning for their conduct back in May. President Emeritus of Purdue University and former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels joins to explain navigating Trump administration criticism, legal action, and frozen federal grants. The Supreme Court has finished its term, and the final rulings were all wins for the Trump administration on a variety of issues, such as abortion funding, parental rights in schools, and limiting the power of federal judges. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized these outcomes, arguing that the 6-3 conservative majority holds too much power. Former federal prosecutor Jim Trusty joins to discuss the latest Supreme Court decisions. Plus, commentary from FOX News contributor and host of The Jason In The House podcast, Jason Chaffetz. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's been an impactful term at the Supreme Court this year, with cases impacting many facets of presidential power and checks-and-balances. On Today's Show:Ruth Marcus, contributor to The New Yorker, former columnist for The Washington Post and the author of Supreme Ambition: Brett Kavanaugh and the Conservative Takeover (Simon & Schuster, 2019), talks about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and takes stock of the Supreme Court's latest blockbuster decisions.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Supreme Court's two most significant cases of the term. First, she examines the Court's ruling that sharply limits federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially in the context of challenges to executive orders like those affecting birthright citizenship. The episode then moves to the Supreme Court's decision upholding Tennessee's ban on certain gender-affirming care for minors. Jessica explains how the Court sided with state power, applying a deferential standard of review, and contrasts this with the dissent's focus on equal protection for transgender youth.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Limits on Judicial Power: The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal judges generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions unless Congress clearly authorizes it. This shifts significant power dynamic back to individual cases and underscores the role of Congress in expanding judicial remedies.Nuanced Exceptions Remain: Despite the new limits, broad relief is still possible through class actions, certain state-led cases, and challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act. These pathways ensure there are still tools to address sweeping executive actions, though access is more restricted.Transgender Rights Under Scrutiny: In the Skrmetti case, the Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, framing the law as a neutral regulation based on age and medical use—not sex or transgender status. Dissenting justices warn this approach threatens protections for vulnerable groups and diminishes the judiciary's role as a check on legislative overreach.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

How are the nation's most elite universities navigating the Trump administration? Harvard was recently been informed by the Trump administration that the school has violated federal civil rights law over how it treats Jewish and Israeli students. Allegations of civil rights violations are just the latest troubles for the Ivy Leagues, as Columbia University received a formal warning for their conduct back in May. President Emeritus of Purdue University and former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels joins to explain navigating Trump administration criticism, legal action, and frozen federal grants. The Supreme Court has finished its term, and the final rulings were all wins for the Trump administration on a variety of issues, such as abortion funding, parental rights in schools, and limiting the power of federal judges. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized these outcomes, arguing that the 6-3 conservative majority holds too much power. Former federal prosecutor Jim Trusty joins to discuss the latest Supreme Court decisions. Plus, commentary from FOX News contributor and host of The Jason In The House podcast, Jason Chaffetz. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

How are the nation's most elite universities navigating the Trump administration? Harvard was recently been informed by the Trump administration that the school has violated federal civil rights law over how it treats Jewish and Israeli students. Allegations of civil rights violations are just the latest troubles for the Ivy Leagues, as Columbia University received a formal warning for their conduct back in May. President Emeritus of Purdue University and former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels joins to explain navigating Trump administration criticism, legal action, and frozen federal grants. The Supreme Court has finished its term, and the final rulings were all wins for the Trump administration on a variety of issues, such as abortion funding, parental rights in schools, and limiting the power of federal judges. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized these outcomes, arguing that the 6-3 conservative majority holds too much power. Former federal prosecutor Jim Trusty joins to discuss the latest Supreme Court decisions. Plus, commentary from FOX News contributor and host of The Jason In The House podcast, Jason Chaffetz. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required)   Join Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Operations Officer, as he breaks down today's biggest stories shaping America and the world. Operation Midnight Hammer: Did It Truly Cripple Iran's Nuclear Program? New reports from the IAEA and U.S. intel show conflicting views on how much damage the U.S. and Israel inflicted on Iran's nuclear efforts. Bryan uses a Skittles analogy to explain uranium enrichment and assess whether Iran can rebuild. While key facilities were destroyed, Iran's knowledge and possible secret sites remain major concerns. Supreme Court Issues Three Major Rulings with Explosive Dissent The Court upholds Texas' right to require age verification for adult websites, affirms parents' rights to exempt their kids from LGBT curriculum, and limits nationwide injunctions, undercutting past legal blockades against Trump. The majority harshly criticizes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent, sparking discussion over judicial competence and even murmurs of removal from the bench. NYC Mayoral Candidate Sparks Uproar with Race-Based Tax Proposal Socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani proposes shifting taxes from minority neighborhoods to “richer, whiter” areas and calls for abolishing billionaires. Critics demand his denaturalization, citing possible Marxist affiliations at the time of his U.S. citizenship. Bryan suggests the DOJ investigate whether he should be stripped of his citizenship under federal law. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." – John 8:32

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

On the heels of the major SCOTUS ruling that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson calls “an existential threat to the rule of law,” we are busy mobilizing for a week of protest in DC culminating in a march on the White House demanding Trump Must Go Now:Meet Friday July 4 at 2pm at Logan CircleSunsara Taylor recaps and analyzes the stakes of this ruling, plus Sam shares highlights from Elie Mystal's essential article, The Supreme Court's Birthright Citizenship Ruling Is a 5-Alarm Catastrophe.Shout out to LA organizer Luna for the song we should all be singing at every protest coast to coast until Trump is gone!Read the full statement This July 4th: A Declaration of Independence from Trump's Fascist America.Connect with the movement at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠RefuseFascism.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, text NOTRUMP to 855-755-1314, follow @RefuseFascism on social media (@RefuseFashizm on TikTok) and our YouTube channel: @Refuse_Fascism. Support:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/refusefascism⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠donate.refusefascism.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Venmo: Refuse-Fascism⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy merch⁠⁠⁠Music for this episode: Penny the Snitch by Ikebe Shakedown

In Episode 215, Dave starts the show discussing Trump's repeated SCOTUS wins before turning his attention to a peace deal in Congo, the US economy, tariff's, and a potential Fed rate cut in September. After all of that, Dave circles back and discusses the SCOTUS ruling allowing South Carolina to prohibit Medicaid money for Planned Parenthood. Dave closes the show with a round up of news and current events related to the pushback on mass unchecked migration in the UK, Northern Ireland, many EU countries, Australia, and the US. Article Links: Justice Amy Coney Barrett humiliates Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson over her apparent ignorance of American law by Joseph MacKinnon from Blaze Media Congo and Rwanda will sign a US-mediated peace deal to end the conflict in eastern Congo by Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations, Justin Kabumba in Goma, Congo, Ignatius Ssuuna in Kigali, Rwanda, and Matthew Lee in Washington from SRN News Key read on inflation rose last month and Americans cut back on spending from SRN News Fed's Kashkari expects two rate cuts this year, with pause possible by Ann Saphir from SRN News MASSIVE WIN: Planned Parenthood takes major hit to abortion 'care' by BlazeTV Staff Noem prepares to deport 500,000 immigrants from one long-troubled island by Candace Hathaway from Blaze Media Support Dave by visiting his new website at Two Rivers Outfitter for all of your preparedness needs and you can also visit his Etsy shop at DesignsbyDandTStore for fun clothing options. Available for Purchase - Fiction: When Rome Stumbles | Hannibal is at the Gates | By the Dawn's Early Light | Colder Weather | A Time for Reckoning (paperback versions) | Fiction Series (paperback) | Fiction Series (audio) Available for Purchase - Non-Fiction: Preparing to Prepare (electronic/paperback) | Home Remedies (electronic/paperback) | Just a Small Gathering (paperback) | Just a Small Gathering (electronic)

In this episode, Carl Jackson discusses significant Supreme Court decisions with constitutional attorney Zach Smith. They delve into the implications of recent rulings, including a major win for the Trump administration regarding nationwide injunctions, parental rights in education, and the protection of children from harmful content. The conversation also highlights Justice Amy Coney Barrett's strong rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the ongoing challenges posed by class action lawsuits against executive orders. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/carljacksonradio Twitter: https://twitter.com/carljacksonshow Parler: https://parler.com/carljacksonshow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarljacksonshow http://www.TheCarlJacksonShow.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Carl Jackson discusses significant Supreme Court decisions with constitutional attorney Zach Smith. They delve into the implications of recent rulings, including a major win for the Trump administration regarding nationwide injunctions, parental rights in education, and the protection of children from harmful content. The conversation also highlights Justice Amy Coney Barrett's strong rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the ongoing challenges posed by class action lawsuits against executive orders. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/carljacksonradio Twitter: https://twitter.com/carljacksonshow Parler: https://parler.com/carljacksonshow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarljacksonshow http://www.TheCarlJacksonShow.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ben Shapiro breaks down news out of the Supreme Court on the final day of its term. Justices Barrett, Alito, and Thomas issue major decisions on President Trump's powers, freedom of speech, and religious liberty, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gets OWNED for being a judicial activist. - - - Today's Sponsor: PDS Debt - You're 30 seconds away from being debt-free with PDS Debt. Get your free assessment and find the best option for you at https://PDSDebt.com/shapiro. - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy

In a 6-3 ruling from the Supreme Court President Trump scored a huge victory regarding democrat lawfare. Justice Amy Coney Barrett ripped into Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson for her dissent, exposing her for who she really is.This comes as President Trump has faced a record amount of Nation Wide Injunctions to kill his America First agenda. The lawfare is over! And some new records on wall street today! The dems told us just months ago that Trump was going to destroy the markets -- so what happen!?Guest: Professor William Jacobson - Cornell University and Founder of Equal Protection ProjectSponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Day in Legal History: Federal Housing AdministrationOn June 27, 1934, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created through the National Housing Act, marking a major shift in the federal government's role in the housing market. The FHA was designed to address the housing crisis of the Great Depression, when foreclosures were rampant and private lenders were reluctant to issue long-term mortgages. By insuring loans made by private lenders, the FHA significantly reduced the risk of default, making it easier and more affordable for Americans to buy homes.The FHA introduced standardized, amortized 20- and 30-year mortgages—innovations that quickly became industry norms. These reforms expanded access to home financing for middle-class families and jump-started suburban development. However, the agency's early policies also entrenched racial segregation through redlining, where predominantly Black neighborhoods were systematically denied FHA-backed loans.While the FHA has since evolved and is now part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), its legacy is a mix of increased homeownership and the deepening of racial disparities in wealth and housing. The legal framework it helped establish continues to shape U.S. housing policy today, making it a pivotal moment in both real estate law and civil rights history. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy voiced alarm over the state of American political discourse during a recent international judicial forum, warning that the tone of current debates poses a threat to democracy and freedom. Speaking without directly referencing President Trump, Kennedy criticized the rise of identity politics and emphasized that civil discourse should be about issues, not partisan affiliations. He argued that judges are essential to a functioning democracy and must be protected—both physically and in terms of public respect.Other speakers, including South African jurist Richard Goldstone and U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, echoed Kennedy's concerns. Goldstone condemned personal attacks on judges who ruled against the current administration, while Salas highlighted the growing danger judges face, referencing her own experience with targeted violence and the record-high levels of threats now being reported in the U.S.The event underscored a growing consensus among jurists worldwide: that political attacks on the judiciary undermine democratic institutions and risk eroding the rule of law.Retired US Supreme Court Justice Kennedy warns 'freedom is at risk' | ReutersA federal judge has rejected a joint attempt by Ripple Labs and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to finalize a reduced settlement in their long-running legal battle over unregistered XRP token sales. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres criticized both parties for proposing a $50 million fine in lieu of a previously imposed $125 million penalty and for attempting to nullify a permanent injunction she had ordered.Judge Torres ruled in 2023 that Ripple's public XRP sales weren't securities, but $728 million in sales to institutional investors violated federal securities laws. While both sides appealed, they later proposed to settle—if the court would cancel the injunction and approve the reduced fine. Torres refused, stating they lacked authority to override a court's final judgment involving a violation of congressional statute.She emphasized that exceptional circumstances justifying the request were not present and that vacating a permanent injunction would undermine the public interest and the administration of justice. The SEC and Ripple still have the option to continue their appeals or drop them entirely.The case is notable amid a broader shift under President Trump's second term, during which the SEC has dropped several high-profile crypto enforcement actions. XRP remains one of the top cryptocurrencies by market value.SEC, Ripple wants to settle crypto lawsuit, but US judge rebuffs them | ReutersThe Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to end automatic birthright citizenship by narrowing the scope of judicial injunctions. Previously, lower courts had issued nationwide injunctions blocking the policy, but the Court ruled these injunctions should apply only to the parties involved in the lawsuits. This means that the policy can now proceed in most states, except those like New Hampshire where separate legal challenges remain in effect. The Court's decision followed ideological lines, with the conservative majority backing the administration and liberal justices dissenting. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that courts must not overreach their authority even when they find executive actions unlawful. In contrast, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned the ruling could erode the rule of law by allowing inconsistent application of federal policy across states.The ruling does not address the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship, leaving that question open for future litigation. The Trump administration's executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, reinterprets the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause to exclude children born in the U.S. to non-citizen or non-resident parents. This reinterpretation challenges the longstanding understanding established by the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which confirmed that nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens. The administration has argued that judges lack the authority to impose broad injunctions and that states challenging the policy lack standing. While the policy remains blocked in certain jurisdictions, the administration can now continue planning for its implementation and potentially face a patchwork of future legal challenges.Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship planIn a piece I wrote for Forbes yesterday, the Trump administration briefly floated Section 899, a provision dubbed the “revenge tax,” as a retaliatory measure against countries imposing taxes deemed discriminatory toward U.S. companies—particularly tech giants. This measure, hidden within the broader One Big Beautiful Bill Act, proposed punitive tax increases on income earned in the U.S. by individuals and entities linked to “discriminatory foreign countries.” The policy was a response to international developments like the OECD's Pillar 2 framework and digital services taxes (DSTs), which the U.S. perceived as disproportionately targeting American firms.Section 899 would have enabled the Treasury to impose annual 5% tax hikes on everything from dividends to real estate gains, even overriding exemptions for sovereign wealth funds. What made the provision particularly aggressive was its vague triggering criteria—any foreign tax Treasury considered “unfair” could activate the penalties, without congressional oversight.Despite its bold intent, Section 899 was ultimately abandoned. It generated concern among investors and foreign governments alike, with critics warning it would destabilize capital markets and act as an unofficial sanctions regime. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent eventually signaled its withdrawal, citing improved diplomatic relations. Though shelved for now, the idea may resurface if international tax disputes escalate.Section 899—The ‘Revenge Tax' That Didn't SurviveA double dose of me this week, another piece I wrote for Forbes:The Pro Codes Act, currently before Congress as H.R.4072, poses a serious threat to public access to the law by allowing private organizations to retain copyright over technical standards—even after those standards are incorporated by reference into statutes and regulations. Although pitched as a transparency measure, the bill effectively transforms enforceable legal obligations into intellectual property governed by restrictive licenses and online viewer limitations.The Act would require standards to be “publicly accessible,” but this access might mean only being able to view documents behind login walls, with no ability to download, search, or integrate them into legal or compliance tools. This is particularly troubling in areas like tax law, where these standards often form the basis for determining eligibility for deductions or credits.By commodifying access to legal standards, the Pro Codes Act would introduce a two-tiered system: well-resourced firms could pay for commercial access, while small legal clinics, nonprofits, and individuals could find themselves effectively barred from the rules they're legally obligated to follow. The result is an unequal legal landscape where justice becomes contingent on financial capacity.The bill directly undermines a key legal principle reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2020: laws and materials carrying the force of law cannot be copyrighted. Permitting private entities to control access to mandatory standards shifts power away from the public and toward entities seeking to monetize compliance.Pro Codes Act—Or, What If The Law Came Behind A Paywall?This week's closing theme is Variations sérieuses, Op. 54 by Felix Mendelssohn—a composer whose elegance, intellect, and structural precision made him one of the early Romantic era's brightest voices. Born into a wealthy, culturally vibrant German-Jewish family in 1809, Mendelssohn was a child prodigy whose musical maturity arrived astonishingly early. He played a pivotal role in reviving J.S. Bach's legacy and was admired for his orchestral works, choral music, and virtuosic piano writing.Composed in 1841, the Variations sérieuses reflect a side of Mendelssohn that is often overshadowed by his lighter, more lyrical pieces. Written as a contribution to a fundraising album for a monument to Beethoven, the work pays tribute to that master's weight and depth. In this set of 17 variations on a solemn original theme, Mendelssohn channels both Classical form and Romantic intensity. The variations begin introspectively but grow in technical difficulty and emotional force, culminating in a stormy, almost defiant finale.Unlike many variation sets of the time, which favored decorative flourishes, Mendelssohn's sérieuses live up to their name: they are dense, architecturally rigorous, and deeply expressive. The piece showcases his command of counterpoint, his sensitivity to dynamic contrasts, and his ability to build drama without sacrificing formal clarity. It's music that demands both interpretive depth and virtuosity—qualities that have kept it central to the serious piano repertoire for over 180 years. Mendelssohn once described music as a language too precise for words, and this piece speaks volumes in that tongue. It is a fitting and focused way to close the week.Without further ado, Variations sérieuses, Op. 54 by Felix Mendelssohn – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week, Emily Bazelon and guest hosts Ruth Marcus and James Forman discuss Trump's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities with guest Steven Cook from the Council on Foreign Relations, Zohran Mamdani's stunning victory in the NYC Democratic mayoral primary, and an astonishing whistleblower report that sheds incriminating light on Trump's judicial nominee Emil Bove and defiance of court orders in deportation flight cases. For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily Bazelon and guest hosts Ruth Marcus and James Forman discuss how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's approach differs from the other liberal Justices and her ferocious critiques of the Roberts Court's processes and opinions.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with author Alison Bechdel about her new book, Spent.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Research by Emily Ditto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon and guest hosts Ruth Marcus and James Forman discuss Trump's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities with guest Steven Cook from the Council on Foreign Relations, Zohran Mamdani's stunning victory in the NYC Democratic mayoral primary, and an astonishing whistleblower report that sheds incriminating light on Trump's judicial nominee Emil Bove and defiance of court orders in deportation flight cases. For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily Bazelon and guest hosts Ruth Marcus and James Forman discuss how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's approach differs from the other liberal Justices and her ferocious critiques of the Roberts Court's processes and opinions.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with author Alison Bechdel about her new book, Spent.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Research by Emily Ditto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Emily Bazelon and guest hosts Ruth Marcus and James Forman discuss Trump's bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities with guest Steven Cook from the Council on Foreign Relations, Zohran Mamdani's stunning victory in the NYC Democratic mayoral primary, and an astonishing whistleblower report that sheds incriminating light on Trump's judicial nominee Emil Bove and defiance of court orders in deportation flight cases. For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily Bazelon and guest hosts Ruth Marcus and James Forman discuss how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's approach differs from the other liberal Justices and her ferocious critiques of the Roberts Court's processes and opinions.   In the latest Gabfest Reads, David talks with author Alison Bechdel about her new book, Spent.   Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)   Research by Emily Ditto Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four Thursday takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Trump's Call with XI Trump’s recent call with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Buck breaks down the administration’s efforts to renegotiate trade terms, particularly around rare earth materials, and praises Trump’s strategic clarity and leadership—drawing a sharp contrast with the previous Biden administration’s perceived indecisiveness and lack of coherent China policy. Buck also explores the evolving dynamic between President Trump and Elon Musk, noting some recent friction but expressing hope that their shared goals will keep the relationship productive. He uses this moment to underscore the importance of unity among influential figures who support American innovation and economic strength. CBP Senior Advisor, Ron Vitiello Immigration and border security. Ron Vitiello, Senior Advisor to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Vitello details the dramatic improvements at the southern border under Trump’s leadership, including a 90%+ drop in illegal crossings, increased prosecutions, and the deployment of 10,000 troops. He credits this success to strong leadership, clear policy enforcement, and international cooperation with Mexico and Canada. Vitiello also updates listeners on the status of the border wall, revealing that over 100 miles have been constructed using remaining funds from Trump’s first term, with plans for 700 additional miles underway. He emphasizes how the administration’s use of tariffs has pressured neighboring countries to step up their border enforcement, contributing to a significant reduction in fentanyl trafficking and cartel activity. Buck passionately defends ICE and Border Patrol agents, pushing back against political attacks and media narratives that undermine their work. He highlights the dangerous conditions these agents face and the critical role they play in protecting American communities from cartel violence and illegal immigration. Identity Politics Obsession Buck critiques a controversial ruling by a Biden-appointed federal judge in Colorado, who blocked the deportation of the family of a convicted terrorist. He warns of the dangers of judicial overreach and the erosion of executive authority, especially when lower court judges act as de facto policymakers. A major segment of the hour focuses on the unraveling credibility of former Biden administration allies. Buck calls out CNN’s Jake Tapper for attempting to rebrand himself after years of defending the Biden presidency, accusing him of opportunism. He also dissects the political pivot of former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who recently announced her departure from the Democratic Party. Buck argues that her appointment was driven by DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) priorities rather than qualifications, and he critiques the media’s double standards in covering her tenure. A landmark Supreme Court decision that reaffirms the illegality of reverse discrimination. Buck explains how the unanimous ruling, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, confirms that all Americans—regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation—are equally protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. He frames this as a major blow to DEI policies and a win for merit-based hiring. Bad Blood between Musk and Trump? Buck addresses a growing rift between President Trump and Elon Musk. He analyzes their recent public spat over government spending and policy disagreements, while emphasizing Trump’s history of reconciliation and strategic alliances. Buck suggests that despite current tensions, the relationship may recover, as both figures remain central to the MAGA movement. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Megyn Kelly is joined by Stu Burguiere, host of "Stu Does America," to discuss the shock 9-0 Supreme Court ruling recognizing "reverse" and anti-straight discrimination, the reality of racism and bias even when it's against the "majority," how the ruling written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a win for reality, the Biden White House turning against Karine Jean-Pierre, Democrats admitting the truth about her failures as press secretary, the left and media highlighting her grift and money grab with her new book "Independent" and rebrand, the left suddenly agreeing with the right about the fact that Karine Jean-Pierre is dumb, the Trump and Elon Musk war of words erupting into the public, what Trump and Musk are saying now about the Big Beautiful Bill and each other, the bizarre and shocking video Meghan Markle posted of her dancing while extremely pregnant, Megyn's theory on Meghan's pregnant belly looking fake, and more. Then Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas joins to discuss Gill's viral exchanges with leftists who appear before Congress, his tactic of bringing receipts and confronting them with their own words and reality, who his role models are, his father-in-law Dinesh D'Souza, why he supports the Big Beautiful Bill, and more. Burguiere- https://www.youtube.com/StuDoesAmericaGill- https://x.com/repbrandongill Ground News: Use the link https://groundnews.com/megyn to get 40% off the Vantage subscription to see through mainstream media narratives.Riverbend Ranch: Visit https://riverbendranch.com/ | Use promo code MEGYN for $20 off your first order.Home Title Lock: Go to https://hometitlelock.com/megynkelly and use promo code MEGYN to get a FREE title history report so you can find out if you're already a victim AND 14 days of protection for FREE! And make sure to check out the Million Dollar TripleLock protection details when you get there! Exclusions apply. For details visit https://hometitlelock.com/warrantyBirch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold