Podcasts about justice ketanji brown jackson

Federal agencies expanding their power beyond congressional intent? Unelected bureaucrats making policy decisions? Regulatory whiplash?! According to the litigants urging the Supreme Court to strike down the Chevron doctrine in the Loper Bright case, those were the harms Americans would continue to face if Chevron deference were allowed to continue. But striking down the pivotal legal principle that had been in place for 40 years would bring its own risks, defenders of Chevron argued. Scientific and technical decisions would need to be made by judges with no specialized expertise. Regulatory uncertainty would soar, as thousands of existing rules face new challenges. And the Supreme Court itself could be forced to become, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put it, "uber-legislators." In part two of our episode on Loper Bright, the high court ostensibly considers the plight of the herring fishermen, but actually looks to decide whether to abandon the Chevron doctrine once and for all.Stylebook flag Featured Guests: Ryan Mulvey, counsel with the Cause of Action Institute Jeff Kaelin, director of sustainability and government relations at Lund's Fisheries Wayne Reichle, President of Lund's Fisheries Gillian Metzger, Harlan Fiske Stone Professor of constitutional law at Columbia University Lydia Wheeler, co-host of Cases and Controversies & Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg Law Greg Stohr, co-host of Cases and Controversies & Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg News Kimberly Robinson, co-host of Cases and Controversies & Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg Law *** Hosted and produced by Matthew S. Schwartz Editor/Executive Producer: Josh Block Cover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte Special thanks to Tom Taylor, David Schultz, Paul Detrick, Isabel Gottlieb, and Matt's baby for their vocal performances.

Tune in here to this Monday's edition of the Brett Winterble Show! Brett kicks off the program by talking about the recently released Robert Hur tapes and President Joe Biden’s reported cancer diagnosis. While expressing sincere well-wishes for Biden’s health and recovery, Brett makes clear that this sympathy doesn’t excuse what he views as a deeply flawed presidency. He criticizes Biden’s leadership as unfocused and driven by those around him, pointing to various scandals and policy failures, including border security, foreign policy, and infrastructure neglect. Later Brett discusses a significant Supreme Court ruling in favor of President Trump, allowing him to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over 300,000 Venezuelans. The 8–1 decision, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, reverses a Biden administration move to extend protections due to instability in Venezuela. Brett argues this ruling reasserts executive authority over immigration policy and criticizes the use of lower federal courts to block national decisions. Bo Thompson from Good Morning BT is also here for this Monday's episode of Crossing the Streams.Brett and Bo talk about the surprise early vote to fill the Charlotte City Council vacancy and the return of former at-large member Edwin Peacock. Initially expected later in the evening, the vote resulted in a 5-5 tie between Peacock and Krista Bakari, wife of former councilman Tariq Bakari. Mayor Vi Lyles broke the tie, appointing Peacock as a short-term caretaker through December. Bo notes Peacock’s calm demeanor, political pedigree, and past service, making him a familiar face in local politics. Krista Bakari, who did not attend the candidate session, is expected to run in the fall after showing strong support from council members. Brett and Bo also explore the broader implications for upcoming elections and Republican representation on council. Bo also shares what he and Beth have coming up Tuesday's on Good Morning BT! Listen here for all of this and more on The Brett Winterble Show! For more from Brett Winterble check out his YouTube channel. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rep. Al Green already filed Articles of Impeachment against Trump. Trump posts that Taylor Swift is not hot. The House fails to get a budget out of committee.  Former FBI Director James Comey posts an Instagram photo insinuating Trump should be assassinated. Kid Rock says we have a low birth rate in America because “who's going to sleep with these ugly ass broke liberal women”.  Delegate Plaskett tells Congress to “take away some shit from the rich as well”. Squad Member Ayanna Presley demands slavery reparations NOW. Dana explains how this is historically inept. Democrats continue to turn heel about Biden's cognitive decline. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the word “injunction” like Adam Sandler's Cajun Man character. Bernie Sanders admits dems are afraid to get attacked by Super PACs if they speak against the war on Gaza. Historian and Former MO Treasurer, Karan Pujji, explains how the separation of Balochistan from Pakistan could affect a shift in Western Civilization.  Thank you for supporting our sponsors that make The Dana Show possible…Relief Factorhttps://relieffactor.com OR CALL 1-800-4-RELIEFTurn the clock back on pain with Relief Factor. Get their 3-week Relief Factor Quick Start for only $19.95 today! Goldcohttps://DanaLikesGold.com My personal gold company - get your GoldCo 2025 Gold & Silver Kit. PLUS, you could qualify for up to 10% in BONUS silver.Byrnahttps://byrna.com/danaGet your hands on the new compact Byrna CL. Visit Byrna.com/Dana receive 10% off. Patriot Mobilehttps://patriotmobile.com/DanaDana's personal cell phone provider is Patriot Mobile. Get a FREE MONTH of service code DANA.HumanNhttps://humann.comSupport your metabolism and healthy blood sugar levels with Superberine by HumanN. Find it now at your local Sam's Club next to SuperBeets Heart Chews.  KelTechttps://KelTecWeapons.comSee the third generation of the iconic SUB2000 and the NEW PS57 - Keltec Innovation & Performance at its best.All Family Pharmacyhttps://AllFamilyPharmacy.com/DanaCode Dana10 for 10% off your entire order.PreBornhttps://Preborn.com/DanaWith your help, we can hit the goal of 1,000 ultrasounds this month! Just dial #250 and say “Baby”. Ancient Nutritionhttp://ancientnutrition.com/DanaCollagen and wellness, powered by Ancient Nutrition—get 25% off your first order with promo code DANA.Home Title Lockhttps://hometitlelock.com/danaProtect your home! Get a FREE title history report + 14 days of coverage with code DANA. Check out the Million Dollar TripleLock—terms apply.Ground Newshttps://Groundnews.com/DANAGet 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan.

Description: In the span of a single year, Abby Wambach lost her beloved brother, her wife Glennon Doyle  was diagnosed with anorexia, and her sister-in-law Amanda Doyle was diagnosed with breast cancer. For the first time, the trio who host the wildly popular We Can Do Hard Things podcast, all found themselves simultaneously lost, looking for answers. So they turned toward the only thing that's ever helped them find their way: deep, honest conversations with other brave, kind, wise people. What resulted from those conversations was a myriad of guideposts, words of wisdom from some of the most brilliant wayfinders in the zeitgeist today. In this episode, Jen and Amy talk with Abby and Amanda about some of the most meaningful bits of guidance that they have received from inspirational voices like Elizabeth Gilbert, Jane Fonda, Michelle Obama, Ocean Vuong, Esther Perel,  Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and others that they have gathered into a new book called, We Can Do Hard Things: Answers to Life's 20 Questions. Some of the conversations they delve into include: Why are we like this? How do we figure out what we really want? How do we let go, or forgive, or get unstuck? Why do we wake up every day having forgotten everything we know? Why self-loyalty is so damn hard for women? Thought-provoking Quotes: “I'm just trying to remain a human in this political environment, in this place of deep fear where so much is at risk. And I think the way we do that is continuing to see each other as human and continuing to let our hearts break over what should break our hearts.” – Amanda Doyle “Having played on many different teams, I'm well suited to work well with others. I just have to be here and be myself. That is the way that I add value. I am not gonna add value in the way that Glennon and Amanda do. I know that. But that doesn't give me any lack of confidence because I know I bring something to the team.” – Abby Wambach “After 400 or so conversations, it was so wild that, whether we were talking to a person who's been a therapist for 40 years, or a person who's a poet, or a person who's an activist, there were just a handful of questions that all of these people are struggling with. The smartest people in the world are trying to figure out the same things that we are.” – Amanda Doyle Resources Mentioned in This Episode: Forward: A Memoir by Abby Wambach - https://amzn.to/4ckZOFi WOLFPACK: How to Come Together, Unleash Our Power, and Change the Game by Abby Wambach - https://amzn.to/4cpazqg We Can Do Hard Things: Answers to Life's 20 Questions by Glennon Doyle, Abby Wambach, and Amanda Doyle - https://amzn.to/3EfeZ6r Glennon Doyle - https://momastery.com/ Amanda Doyle Stops Keeping Score And Stays In The Moment - https://jenhatmaker.com/podcasts/series-60/amanda-doyle-stops-keeping-score-and-stays-in-the-moment/ Brené Brown - https://brenebrown.com/ Kate Bowler - https://katebowler.com/about/ Suzanne Stabile - https://suzannestabile.com/ Guest's Links: Website - https://abbywambach.com/ Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/abbywambach/ Twitter - https://x.com/abbywambach Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/abbywambach/ Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCej3anJvC-rSMd63asN8cXg Podcast - https://wecandohardthingspodcast.com/ Guest's Links: Twitter - https://x.com/amandafdoyle Podcast - https://wecandohardthingspodcast.com/ Connect with Jen!Jen's Website - https://jenhatmaker.com/ Jen's Instagram - https://instagram.com/jenhatmakerJen's Twitter - https://twitter.com/jenHatmaker/ Jen's Facebook - https://facebook.com/jenhatmakerJen's YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/JenHatmaker The For the Love Podcast is presented by Audacy. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This time, John discusses the MAJOR MAGA meltdown after GOP Senator Thom Tillis said he would not vote to confirm Ed "Stop the Steal" Martin as Washington's top prosecutor. He also talks about India launching missile attacks on two targets in Pakistan territories just two weeks after a terror attack killed 26 tourists in Kashmir. Then, Professor Corey Brettschneider returns to wonder about Trump making a jaw-dropping assertion that the presidential oath might not obligate him to uphold the Constitution, a federal court pushing back on Trump's latest executive order aimed at punishing his political opponents (and their law firms), and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issuing a public rebuke of Trump's attacks on the judiciary. Next, John speaks with attorney Dina Sayegh Doll about Trump's legal problems. Her legal analysis regarding the Blake Lively/Justin Baldoni litigation is featured in the documentary "In Dispute” currently streaming on MAX. And rounding it out, Comedy Daddy - Keith Price jumps in the mix to joke with the gang about the destruction of democracy and the trending topics of the day.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Story #1: Quick Takes: Why playoff hockey is the best, Senator John Fetterman's disturbance on an airplane, the Justice Department opens an investigation on a Minnesota DA over racial discrimination, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson claims criticizing judges is an ‘attack on democracy.'   Story #2: How are the First 100 Days of the second Trump Administration going? Will breaks down the 'All In' Podcast's grades so far and shares his conversation with University of Dallas college students as he gathers the opinions of Gen Z. Story #3: As President Donald Trump looks to open the Alcatraz super-prison back up, Will and The Crew take a quiz with five things you likely didn't know about the infamous island. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing WillCainShow@fox.com Subscribe to 'The Will Cain Show' on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for May 5, 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 PM Politico - Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply condemns Trump's attacks on judges The 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 Act Politico - Trump calls for impeachment of judge who tried to halt deportations White 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  Register or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease 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

Nicolle Wallace on companies warning of higher prices due to Trump's tariffs, his intensifying threats to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's rebuke of the dangerous rhetoric attempting to intimidate judges nationwide. Joined by: David Gura, Michele Norris, Angelo Carusone, Mike Schmidt, Basil Smikle, Anne Applebaum, Kristy Greenberg, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Devlin Barrett.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argues for schools that want to force woke LGBTQ content in your children's books in Mahmoud v. Taylor. Meanwhile, Meghan Markle says she loves eating dried flower petals at TIMEs 100 event.Thank you for supporting our sponsors that make The Dana Show possible…Ground Newshttps://Groundnews.com/DANAGet 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan.Home Title Lockhttps://hometitlelock.com/danaProtect your home! Get a FREE title history report + 14 days of coverage with code DANA. Check out the Million Dollar TripleLock—terms apply.Relief Factorhttps://relieffactor.comTurn the clock back on pain with Relief Factor. Get their 3-week Relief Factor Quick Start for only $19.95 today! Goldcohttps://DanaLikesGold.com My personal gold company - get your GoldCo 2025 Gold & Silver Kit. PLUS, you could qualify for up to 10% in BONUS silverByrnahttps://byrna.com/danaDon't leave yourself or your loved ones without options. Visit Byrna.com/Dana receive 10% off Patriot Mobilehttps://patriotmobile.com/DanaDana's personal cell phone provider is Patriot Mobile. Get a FREE MONTH of service code DANAHumanNhttps://humann.comSupport your metabolism and healthy blood sugar levels with Superberine by HumanN. Find it now at your local Sam's Club next to SuperBeets Heart Chews.  Tax Network USAhttps://TNUSA.com/DANADon't let the IRS's aggressive tactics control your life; empower yourself with Tax Network USA's support.  Reach a USA-based agent @ 1(800) 958-1000 - Don't fight the IRS alone.KelTechttps://KelTecWeapons.comKeltec Innovation & Performance at its bestAll Family Pharmacyhttps://AllFamilyPharmacy.com/DanaCode Dana10 for 10% off your entire order

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Jotaka Eaddy. She is an award-winning strategist, advocate, host and connector who Forbes Magazine describes as the“Olivia Pope of Silicon Valley.” Jotaka is the Founder and CEO of Full Circle Strategies and the Founder of #WinWithBlackWomen, an intergenerational, intersectional group of Black women leaders representing business, sports, movement, politics, entertainment, and beyond who come together within their personal capacities to stand united in support of Black women. She is a proud member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated. Company Description *Win With Black Women (WWBW) is a collective of intergenerational, intersectional Black women leaders from across the nation—spanning business, politics, tech, faith, labor, academia, the arts, and social movements. We come together in our personal capacities to stand united in support of Black women, driven by a shared commitment to justice, equity, and representation. Our network has grown to over 200,000 members, and our impact spans elections, judicial appointments, and cultural shifts. From championing the nomination and confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to advocating for Black women in the Senate to supporting the first Black woman nominated by a major party for the presidency of the United States, WWBW has grown into a powerful force advancing the leadership, visibility, and policy priorities of Black women nationwide. Talking Points/Questions *1. I believe one person can create a wave of change: My mother taught me that you can be a pebble that makes a ripple, that creates a wave, that becomes a tsunami. That belief grounds everything I do—personally, professionally, and politically. 2. I’ve spent my career connecting worlds that were never meant to stay separate: Whether it’s politics, tech, or movement work—my work is about uniting people, building bridges, and turning moments into movements. 3. Win With Black Women didn’t start as a campaign—it started as a declaration: We came together in 2020 to reject a toxic narrative about Black women in power. What started as one call became a community, a coalition, and a cultural force. 4. WWBW is proof that when Black women organize, we don’t just participate—we transform: From helping confirm Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to pushing for Brittney Griner’s release—we’ve seen what’s possible when we move in unity. 5. WWBW is a force. But it’s also a family: We gather on Sundays. We raise millions. We elevate each other. What we’ve built is bigger than any election—it’s a sisterhood ready to shape the future. 6. The 2024 election changed history—again: For the first time, two Black women serve in the U.S. Senate. That matters. It’s not just symbolic. It’s strategic. It’s structural. It’s overdue. 7. This is a defining moment—not just for the country, but for us: A second Trump presidency threatens our rights, our communities, and our progress. But we’ve never waited for someone to save us. We organize. We show up. We lead. 8. The question is not ‘what now?’ The question is ‘what are we willing to do?’: This moment is asking something of all of us: to vote, to stay engaged, to hold power accountable—not just once every four years, but every day after. 9. Leadership isn’t about position—it’s about motion: Sometimes leadership looks like being out front. Other times, it looks like building space for others to shine. Either way, it’s movement. It’s momentum. It’s power. 10. Connection is my superpower: I’ve built my work—and my success—on authentic relationships. Not transactions, but real trust. That’s how we build lasting coalitions that win. #BEST #STRAW #SHMSSupport the show: https://www.steveharveyfm.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Jotaka Eaddy. She is an award-winning strategist, advocate, host and connector who Forbes Magazine describes as the“Olivia Pope of Silicon Valley.” Jotaka is the Founder and CEO of Full Circle Strategies and the Founder of #WinWithBlackWomen, an intergenerational, intersectional group of Black women leaders representing business, sports, movement, politics, entertainment, and beyond who come together within their personal capacities to stand united in support of Black women. She is a proud member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated. Company Description *Win With Black Women (WWBW) is a collective of intergenerational, intersectional Black women leaders from across the nation—spanning business, politics, tech, faith, labor, academia, the arts, and social movements. We come together in our personal capacities to stand united in support of Black women, driven by a shared commitment to justice, equity, and representation. Our network has grown to over 200,000 members, and our impact spans elections, judicial appointments, and cultural shifts. From championing the nomination and confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to advocating for Black women in the Senate to supporting the first Black woman nominated by a major party for the presidency of the United States, WWBW has grown into a powerful force advancing the leadership, visibility, and policy priorities of Black women nationwide. Talking Points/Questions *1. I believe one person can create a wave of change: My mother taught me that you can be a pebble that makes a ripple, that creates a wave, that becomes a tsunami. That belief grounds everything I do—personally, professionally, and politically. 2. I’ve spent my career connecting worlds that were never meant to stay separate: Whether it’s politics, tech, or movement work—my work is about uniting people, building bridges, and turning moments into movements. 3. Win With Black Women didn’t start as a campaign—it started as a declaration: We came together in 2020 to reject a toxic narrative about Black women in power. What started as one call became a community, a coalition, and a cultural force. 4. WWBW is proof that when Black women organize, we don’t just participate—we transform: From helping confirm Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to pushing for Brittney Griner’s release—we’ve seen what’s possible when we move in unity. 5. WWBW is a force. But it’s also a family: We gather on Sundays. We raise millions. We elevate each other. What we’ve built is bigger than any election—it’s a sisterhood ready to shape the future. 6. The 2024 election changed history—again: For the first time, two Black women serve in the U.S. Senate. That matters. It’s not just symbolic. It’s strategic. It’s structural. It’s overdue. 7. This is a defining moment—not just for the country, but for us: A second Trump presidency threatens our rights, our communities, and our progress. But we’ve never waited for someone to save us. We organize. We show up. We lead. 8. The question is not ‘what now?’ The question is ‘what are we willing to do?’: This moment is asking something of all of us: to vote, to stay engaged, to hold power accountable—not just once every four years, but every day after. 9. Leadership isn’t about position—it’s about motion: Sometimes leadership looks like being out front. Other times, it looks like building space for others to shine. Either way, it’s movement. It’s momentum. It’s power. 10. Connection is my superpower: I’ve built my work—and my success—on authentic relationships. Not transactions, but real trust. That’s how we build lasting coalitions that win. #BEST #STRAW #SHMSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Jotaka Eaddy. She is an award-winning strategist, advocate, host and connector who Forbes Magazine describes as the“Olivia Pope of Silicon Valley.” Jotaka is the Founder and CEO of Full Circle Strategies and the Founder of #WinWithBlackWomen, an intergenerational, intersectional group of Black women leaders representing business, sports, movement, politics, entertainment, and beyond who come together within their personal capacities to stand united in support of Black women. She is a proud member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated. Company Description *Win With Black Women (WWBW) is a collective of intergenerational, intersectional Black women leaders from across the nation—spanning business, politics, tech, faith, labor, academia, the arts, and social movements. We come together in our personal capacities to stand united in support of Black women, driven by a shared commitment to justice, equity, and representation. Our network has grown to over 200,000 members, and our impact spans elections, judicial appointments, and cultural shifts. From championing the nomination and confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to advocating for Black women in the Senate to supporting the first Black woman nominated by a major party for the presidency of the United States, WWBW has grown into a powerful force advancing the leadership, visibility, and policy priorities of Black women nationwide. Talking Points/Questions *1. I believe one person can create a wave of change: My mother taught me that you can be a pebble that makes a ripple, that creates a wave, that becomes a tsunami. That belief grounds everything I do—personally, professionally, and politically. 2. I’ve spent my career connecting worlds that were never meant to stay separate: Whether it’s politics, tech, or movement work—my work is about uniting people, building bridges, and turning moments into movements. 3. Win With Black Women didn’t start as a campaign—it started as a declaration: We came together in 2020 to reject a toxic narrative about Black women in power. What started as one call became a community, a coalition, and a cultural force. 4. WWBW is proof that when Black women organize, we don’t just participate—we transform: From helping confirm Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to pushing for Brittney Griner’s release—we’ve seen what’s possible when we move in unity. 5. WWBW is a force. But it’s also a family: We gather on Sundays. We raise millions. We elevate each other. What we’ve built is bigger than any election—it’s a sisterhood ready to shape the future. 6. The 2024 election changed history—again: For the first time, two Black women serve in the U.S. Senate. That matters. It’s not just symbolic. It’s strategic. It’s structural. It’s overdue. 7. This is a defining moment—not just for the country, but for us: A second Trump presidency threatens our rights, our communities, and our progress. But we’ve never waited for someone to save us. We organize. We show up. We lead. 8. The question is not ‘what now?’ The question is ‘what are we willing to do?’: This moment is asking something of all of us: to vote, to stay engaged, to hold power accountable—not just once every four years, but every day after. 9. Leadership isn’t about position—it’s about motion: Sometimes leadership looks like being out front. Other times, it looks like building space for others to shine. Either way, it’s movement. It’s momentum. It’s power. 10. Connection is my superpower: I’ve built my work—and my success—on authentic relationships. Not transactions, but real trust. That’s how we build lasting coalitions that win. #BEST #STRAW #SHMSSteve Harvey Morning Show Online: http://www.steveharveyfm.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Karen Read's Retrial Heats Up: K-9s, Cameras, and Constitutional Rights So, here's where things got spicy: the judge agreed that Aidan Kearney—aka Turtleboy—has a valid basis to plead the Fifth Amendment in this case. That right there is the kind of courtroom moment that makes legal dramas look tame. Prosecutor Hank Brennan even conceded it. Kearney's attorney, Timothy Bradl, said flat out that if called, Kearney would plead the Fifth, and the judge is letting him stay in the courtroom unless witnesses tied to his own witness intimidation case are on the stand. That's where we ended for the day: “We're all set until Tuesday.” But let's rewind a bit and walk through what led up to that mic-drop moment. The judge kicked things off with the defense's renewed request for a forensic copy of video footage from inside the Canton Police Department's garage. That's been denied before, but defense attorney Elizabeth Little said they've now got expert testimony swearing there's still relevant metadata that could be extracted. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan, on the other hand, basically said, “Sure, come download whatever we've got,” but drew the line at handing over a full image of the department's detective file since it includes unrelated case material. The judge didn't make a ruling on that one—so, still in limbo. Then there's the canine controversy. Brennan's not thrilled with the defense's dog expert, Garrett Wing. He said Wing has no formal certifications and has never testified in court. But Robert Alessi fired back, saying Wing is a leading national expert on law enforcement K-9s. Wing might not have the standard paperwork, but apparently, the guy's resume still carries weight. Meanwhile, Judge Cannone is standing firm on allowing Dr. Crosby—an expert for the prosecution—to testify, but she doesn't believe Crosby can definitively say the marks on John O'Keefe's arms came from Chloe, the German Shepherd allegedly involved. Brennan tried to argue those bite marks don't line up with Chloe's mouth dimensions, but the judge called that an “uphill battle.” Not the kind of response a prosecutor wants to hear going into opening statements. Then came the courtroom theater debate. Brennan wants to use an “independent reader” to read aloud some of Read's text messages during trial—maybe a plain-clothed officer or another neutral voice. Defense attorney Alan Jackson wasn't exactly sold, saying he needs more info before agreeing. Judge Cannone didn't love the idea either, warning it could turn into a theatrical presentation that doesn't belong in a courtroom. You know, courtroom not Broadway. There's also the ongoing tug-of-war over the ARCCA witnesses—the experts hired by the feds who testified in the first trial that O'Keefe likely wasn't hit by a car. Brennan wants a full breakdown of these experts' relationship with the defense since the defense ended up paying them after the mistrial. He's pushing for a pre-testimony hearing, accusing the defense of setting up a potential “trial by ambush” with possible late-arriving evidence. Jackson responded by saying ARCCA hasn't done any new testing—yet. But he admits the defense gave ARCCA new info as recently as March 25 and expects more updates soon. The judge still seems fuzzy on which expert did what, but Jackson insists they're not hiding anything. Speaking of evidence wars, both sides agreed to allow an alternative DNA analyst for the prosecution, and the judge asked for previews of the props each side plans to use in opening statements. The prosecution is bringing video clips. The defense? Just one photo. Back to the courtroom logistics—Judge Cannone wants the jury's scene view to go smoothly. Read will likely travel separately with her attorneys, but at least one defense attorney has to be on the juror bus to match the prosecution's presence. Cannone also expanded the buffer zone outside the courthouse after complaints from the first trial's jurors about noisy demonstrators. Apparently, the yelling and chanting could be heard during deliberations. Nothing like public protests to set the mood for life-or-death legal decisions. Now for the bigger legal chessboard. Read's team is making a Hail Mary pass to the Supreme Court, asking it to throw out two of the three charges, including second-degree murder, claiming the original jury actually acquitted her on those. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson already denied the request for an emergency pause on the retrial, but the full Supreme Court will consider the appeal on April 25. It only takes four of nine justices to hear it—but that's rare air. So far, Read's retrial team includes five lawyers, one of whom—Victoria George—was an alternate juror in the original trial. Yeah, that's some wild trivia. Opening statements are scheduled for April 22, and the new jury—nine women, nine men—will have plenty to chew on. The prosecution plans to lean heavily on Read's own words from her many interviews. Meanwhile, the defense continues to allege a cover-up involving law enforcement, claiming O'Keefe was beaten inside the house, bitten by a dog, and left outside—not struck by Read's car. And sitting in the gallery this week? Just some cousins and friends of John O'Keefe. His brother and parents weren't there for this round. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

Karen Read's Retrial Heats Up: K-9s, Cameras, and Constitutional Rights So, here's where things got spicy: the judge agreed that Aidan Kearney—aka Turtleboy—has a valid basis to plead the Fifth Amendment in this case. That right there is the kind of courtroom moment that makes legal dramas look tame. Prosecutor Hank Brennan even conceded it. Kearney's attorney, Timothy Bradl, said flat out that if called, Kearney would plead the Fifth, and the judge is letting him stay in the courtroom unless witnesses tied to his own witness intimidation case are on the stand. That's where we ended for the day: “We're all set until Tuesday.” But let's rewind a bit and walk through what led up to that mic-drop moment. The judge kicked things off with the defense's renewed request for a forensic copy of video footage from inside the Canton Police Department's garage. That's been denied before, but defense attorney Elizabeth Little said they've now got expert testimony swearing there's still relevant metadata that could be extracted. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan, on the other hand, basically said, “Sure, come download whatever we've got,” but drew the line at handing over a full image of the department's detective file since it includes unrelated case material. The judge didn't make a ruling on that one—so, still in limbo. Then there's the canine controversy. Brennan's not thrilled with the defense's dog expert, Garrett Wing. He said Wing has no formal certifications and has never testified in court. But Robert Alessi fired back, saying Wing is a leading national expert on law enforcement K-9s. Wing might not have the standard paperwork, but apparently, the guy's resume still carries weight. Meanwhile, Judge Cannone is standing firm on allowing Dr. Crosby—an expert for the prosecution—to testify, but she doesn't believe Crosby can definitively say the marks on John O'Keefe's arms came from Chloe, the German Shepherd allegedly involved. Brennan tried to argue those bite marks don't line up with Chloe's mouth dimensions, but the judge called that an “uphill battle.” Not the kind of response a prosecutor wants to hear going into opening statements. Then came the courtroom theater debate. Brennan wants to use an “independent reader” to read aloud some of Read's text messages during trial—maybe a plain-clothed officer or another neutral voice. Defense attorney Alan Jackson wasn't exactly sold, saying he needs more info before agreeing. Judge Cannone didn't love the idea either, warning it could turn into a theatrical presentation that doesn't belong in a courtroom. You know, courtroom not Broadway. There's also the ongoing tug-of-war over the ARCCA witnesses—the experts hired by the feds who testified in the first trial that O'Keefe likely wasn't hit by a car. Brennan wants a full breakdown of these experts' relationship with the defense since the defense ended up paying them after the mistrial. He's pushing for a pre-testimony hearing, accusing the defense of setting up a potential “trial by ambush” with possible late-arriving evidence. Jackson responded by saying ARCCA hasn't done any new testing—yet. But he admits the defense gave ARCCA new info as recently as March 25 and expects more updates soon. The judge still seems fuzzy on which expert did what, but Jackson insists they're not hiding anything. Speaking of evidence wars, both sides agreed to allow an alternative DNA analyst for the prosecution, and the judge asked for previews of the props each side plans to use in opening statements. The prosecution is bringing video clips. The defense? Just one photo. Back to the courtroom logistics—Judge Cannone wants the jury's scene view to go smoothly. Read will likely travel separately with her attorneys, but at least one defense attorney has to be on the juror bus to match the prosecution's presence. Cannone also expanded the buffer zone outside the courthouse after complaints from the first trial's jurors about noisy demonstrators. Apparently, the yelling and chanting could be heard during deliberations. Nothing like public protests to set the mood for life-or-death legal decisions. Now for the bigger legal chessboard. Read's team is making a Hail Mary pass to the Supreme Court, asking it to throw out two of the three charges, including second-degree murder, claiming the original jury actually acquitted her on those. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson already denied the request for an emergency pause on the retrial, but the full Supreme Court will consider the appeal on April 25. It only takes four of nine justices to hear it—but that's rare air. So far, Read's retrial team includes five lawyers, one of whom—Victoria George—was an alternate juror in the original trial. Yeah, that's some wild trivia. Opening statements are scheduled for April 22, and the new jury—nine women, nine men—will have plenty to chew on. The prosecution plans to lean heavily on Read's own words from her many interviews. Meanwhile, the defense continues to allege a cover-up involving law enforcement, claiming O'Keefe was beaten inside the house, bitten by a dog, and left outside—not struck by Read's car. And sitting in the gallery this week? Just some cousins and friends of John O'Keefe. His brother and parents weren't there for this round. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

So, here's where things got spicy: the judge agreed that Aidan Kearney—aka Turtleboy—has a valid basis to plead the Fifth Amendment in this case. That right there is the kind of courtroom moment that makes legal dramas look tame. Prosecutor Hank Brennan even conceded it. Kearney's attorney, Timothy Bradl, said flat out that if called, Kearney would plead the Fifth, and the judge is letting him stay in the courtroom unless witnesses tied to his own witness intimidation case are on the stand. That's where we ended for the day: “We're all set until Tuesday.” But let's rewind a bit and walk through what led up to that mic-drop moment. The judge kicked things off with the defense's renewed request for a forensic copy of video footage from inside the Canton Police Department's garage. That's been denied before, but defense attorney Elizabeth Little said they've now got expert testimony swearing there's still relevant metadata that could be extracted. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan, on the other hand, basically said, “Sure, come download whatever we've got,” but drew the line at handing over a full image of the department's detective file since it includes unrelated case material. The judge didn't make a ruling on that one—so, still in limbo. Then there's the canine controversy. Brennan's not thrilled with the defense's dog expert, Garrett Wing. He said Wing has no formal certifications and has never testified in court. But Robert Alessi fired back, saying Wing is a leading national expert on law enforcement K-9s. Wing might not have the standard paperwork, but apparently, the guy's resume still carries weight. Meanwhile, Judge Cannone is standing firm on allowing Dr. Crosby—an expert for the prosecution—to testify, but she doesn't believe Crosby can definitively say the marks on John O'Keefe's arms came from Chloe, the German Shepherd allegedly involved. Brennan tried to argue those bite marks don't line up with Chloe's mouth dimensions, but the judge called that an “uphill battle.” Not the kind of response a prosecutor wants to hear going into opening statements. Then came the courtroom theater debate. Brennan wants to use an “independent reader” to read aloud some of Read's text messages during trial—maybe a plain-clothed officer or another neutral voice. Defense attorney Alan Jackson wasn't exactly sold, saying he needs more info before agreeing. Judge Cannone didn't love the idea either, warning it could turn into a theatrical presentation that doesn't belong in a courtroom. You know, courtroom not Broadway. There's also the ongoing tug-of-war over the ARCCA witnesses—the experts hired by the feds who testified in the first trial that O'Keefe likely wasn't hit by a car. Brennan wants a full breakdown of these experts' relationship with the defense since the defense ended up paying them after the mistrial. He's pushing for a pre-testimony hearing, accusing the defense of setting up a potential “trial by ambush” with possible late-arriving evidence. Jackson responded by saying ARCCA hasn't done any new testing—yet. But he admits the defense gave ARCCA new info as recently as March 25 and expects more updates soon. The judge still seems fuzzy on which expert did what, but Jackson insists they're not hiding anything. Speaking of evidence wars, both sides agreed to allow an alternative DNA analyst for the prosecution, and the judge asked for previews of the props each side plans to use in opening statements. The prosecution is bringing video clips. The defense? Just one photo. Back to the courtroom logistics—Judge Cannone wants the jury's scene view to go smoothly. Read will likely travel separately with her attorneys, but at least one defense attorney has to be on the juror bus to match the prosecution's presence. Cannone also expanded the buffer zone outside the courthouse after complaints from the first trial's jurors about noisy demonstrators. Apparently, the yelling and chanting could be heard during deliberations. Nothing like public protests to set the mood for life-or-death legal decisions. Now for the bigger legal chessboard. Read's team is making a Hail Mary pass to the Supreme Court, asking it to throw out two of the three charges, including second-degree murder, claiming the original jury actually acquitted her on those. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson already denied the request for an emergency pause on the retrial, but the full Supreme Court will consider the appeal on April 25. It only takes four of nine justices to hear it—but that's rare air. So far, Read's retrial team includes five lawyers, one of whom—Victoria George—was an alternate juror in the original trial. Yeah, that's some wild trivia. Opening statements are scheduled for April 22, and the new jury—nine women, nine men—will have plenty to chew on. The prosecution plans to lean heavily on Read's own words from her many interviews. Meanwhile, the defense continues to allege a cover-up involving law enforcement, claiming O'Keefe was beaten inside the house, bitten by a dog, and left outside—not struck by Read's car. And sitting in the gallery this week? Just some cousins and friends of John O'Keefe. His brother and parents weren't there for this round. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read's Retrial Heats Up: K-9s, Cameras, and Constitutional Rights So, here's where things got spicy: the judge agreed that Aidan Kearney—aka Turtleboy—has a valid basis to plead the Fifth Amendment in this case. That right there is the kind of courtroom moment that makes legal dramas look tame. Prosecutor Hank Brennan even conceded it. Kearney's attorney, Timothy Bradl, said flat out that if called, Kearney would plead the Fifth, and the judge is letting him stay in the courtroom unless witnesses tied to his own witness intimidation case are on the stand. That's where we ended for the day: “We're all set until Tuesday.” But let's rewind a bit and walk through what led up to that mic-drop moment. The judge kicked things off with the defense's renewed request for a forensic copy of video footage from inside the Canton Police Department's garage. That's been denied before, but defense attorney Elizabeth Little said they've now got expert testimony swearing there's still relevant metadata that could be extracted. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan, on the other hand, basically said, “Sure, come download whatever we've got,” but drew the line at handing over a full image of the department's detective file since it includes unrelated case material. The judge didn't make a ruling on that one—so, still in limbo. Then there's the canine controversy. Brennan's not thrilled with the defense's dog expert, Garrett Wing. He said Wing has no formal certifications and has never testified in court. But Robert Alessi fired back, saying Wing is a leading national expert on law enforcement K-9s. Wing might not have the standard paperwork, but apparently, the guy's resume still carries weight. Meanwhile, Judge Cannone is standing firm on allowing Dr. Crosby—an expert for the prosecution—to testify, but she doesn't believe Crosby can definitively say the marks on John O'Keefe's arms came from Chloe, the German Shepherd allegedly involved. Brennan tried to argue those bite marks don't line up with Chloe's mouth dimensions, but the judge called that an “uphill battle.” Not the kind of response a prosecutor wants to hear going into opening statements. Then came the courtroom theater debate. Brennan wants to use an “independent reader” to read aloud some of Read's text messages during trial—maybe a plain-clothed officer or another neutral voice. Defense attorney Alan Jackson wasn't exactly sold, saying he needs more info before agreeing. Judge Cannone didn't love the idea either, warning it could turn into a theatrical presentation that doesn't belong in a courtroom. You know, courtroom not Broadway. There's also the ongoing tug-of-war over the ARCCA witnesses—the experts hired by the feds who testified in the first trial that O'Keefe likely wasn't hit by a car. Brennan wants a full breakdown of these experts' relationship with the defense since the defense ended up paying them after the mistrial. He's pushing for a pre-testimony hearing, accusing the defense of setting up a potential “trial by ambush” with possible late-arriving evidence. Jackson responded by saying ARCCA hasn't done any new testing—yet. But he admits the defense gave ARCCA new info as recently as March 25 and expects more updates soon. The judge still seems fuzzy on which expert did what, but Jackson insists they're not hiding anything. Speaking of evidence wars, both sides agreed to allow an alternative DNA analyst for the prosecution, and the judge asked for previews of the props each side plans to use in opening statements. The prosecution is bringing video clips. The defense? Just one photo. Back to the courtroom logistics—Judge Cannone wants the jury's scene view to go smoothly. Read will likely travel separately with her attorneys, but at least one defense attorney has to be on the juror bus to match the prosecution's presence. Cannone also expanded the buffer zone outside the courthouse after complaints from the first trial's jurors about noisy demonstrators. Apparently, the yelling and chanting could be heard during deliberations. Nothing like public protests to set the mood for life-or-death legal decisions. Now for the bigger legal chessboard. Read's team is making a Hail Mary pass to the Supreme Court, asking it to throw out two of the three charges, including second-degree murder, claiming the original jury actually acquitted her on those. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson already denied the request for an emergency pause on the retrial, but the full Supreme Court will consider the appeal on April 25. It only takes four of nine justices to hear it—but that's rare air. So far, Read's retrial team includes five lawyers, one of whom—Victoria George—was an alternate juror in the original trial. Yeah, that's some wild trivia. Opening statements are scheduled for April 22, and the new jury—nine women, nine men—will have plenty to chew on. The prosecution plans to lean heavily on Read's own words from her many interviews. Meanwhile, the defense continues to allege a cover-up involving law enforcement, claiming O'Keefe was beaten inside the house, bitten by a dog, and left outside—not struck by Read's car. And sitting in the gallery this week? Just some cousins and friends of John O'Keefe. His brother and parents weren't there for this round. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

​Jury selection for Karen Read's second trial has reached a total of 16 jurors—comprising 12 primary jurors and four alternates. Despite achieving this number, the court has decided to continue the selection process to seat up to 18 jurors, providing additional alternates to ensure the trial proceeds without delays due to unforeseen circumstances. This decision reflects the high-profile nature of the case and the court's commitment to maintaining the trial's integrity. The selection process has been meticulous, with both the defense and prosecution exercising their peremptory challenges to shape a fair and impartial jury. Opening statements are anticipated to commence next week, marking a significant step forward in this closely watched legal proceeding.In a parallel development, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied Karen Read's emergency request to pause her retrial. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, acting on behalf of the court, issued the denial without providing an explanation. Read's legal team had argued that retrying her on charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, citing statements from jurors in the first trial who claimed they had unanimously agreed to acquit her on those charges. However, since no formal verdict was announced before the mistrial was declared, the courts have ruled that a retrial does not constitute double jeopardy. With the Supreme Court's decision, the retrial will proceed as scheduled, with jury selection continuing and opening statements expected soon.to contact me:bobbbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What the Supreme Court said about delaying Karen Read's trialKaren Read retrial: 16 jurors selected, 2 more sought for case

​Jury selection for Karen Read's second trial has reached a total of 16 jurors—comprising 12 primary jurors and four alternates. Despite achieving this number, the court has decided to continue the selection process to seat up to 18 jurors, providing additional alternates to ensure the trial proceeds without delays due to unforeseen circumstances. This decision reflects the high-profile nature of the case and the court's commitment to maintaining the trial's integrity. The selection process has been meticulous, with both the defense and prosecution exercising their peremptory challenges to shape a fair and impartial jury. Opening statements are anticipated to commence next week, marking a significant step forward in this closely watched legal proceeding.In a parallel development, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied Karen Read's emergency request to pause her retrial. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, acting on behalf of the court, issued the denial without providing an explanation. Read's legal team had argued that retrying her on charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, citing statements from jurors in the first trial who claimed they had unanimously agreed to acquit her on those charges. However, since no formal verdict was announced before the mistrial was declared, the courts have ruled that a retrial does not constitute double jeopardy. With the Supreme Court's decision, the retrial will proceed as scheduled, with jury selection continuing and opening statements expected soon.to contact me:bobbbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What the Supreme Court said about delaying Karen Read's trialKaren Read retrial: 16 jurors selected, 2 more sought for caseBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​Jury selection for Karen Read's second trial has reached a total of 16 jurors—comprising 12 primary jurors and four alternates. Despite achieving this number, the court has decided to continue the selection process to seat up to 18 jurors, providing additional alternates to ensure the trial proceeds without delays due to unforeseen circumstances. This decision reflects the high-profile nature of the case and the court's commitment to maintaining the trial's integrity. The selection process has been meticulous, with both the defense and prosecution exercising their peremptory challenges to shape a fair and impartial jury. Opening statements are anticipated to commence next week, marking a significant step forward in this closely watched legal proceeding.In a parallel development, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied Karen Read's emergency request to pause her retrial. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, acting on behalf of the court, issued the denial without providing an explanation. Read's legal team had argued that retrying her on charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a fatal accident would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, citing statements from jurors in the first trial who claimed they had unanimously agreed to acquit her on those charges. However, since no formal verdict was announced before the mistrial was declared, the courts have ruled that a retrial does not constitute double jeopardy. With the Supreme Court's decision, the retrial will proceed as scheduled, with jury selection continuing and opening statements expected soon.to contact me:bobbbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:What the Supreme Court said about delaying Karen Read's trialKaren Read retrial: 16 jurors selected, 2 more sought for caseBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but which can be committed by failing to take action, have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force?The case was decided on March 21, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the knowing or intentional causation of injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the “use” of “physical force” against another person within the meaning of 18 U-S-C §924(c)(3)(A). Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.In United States v Castleman, the Court held that “knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury necessarily involves the use of physical force.” This principle applies equally to §924(c) cases where injury is caused by omission rather than affirmative action. There is no meaningful distinction between acts and omissions, as deliberately causing harm through inaction still qualifies as "using" force, just as a person can "use" rain to wash their car by leaving it outside. Moreover, murder—the prototypical “crime of violence”—has long been understood to include liability for omissions, such as when a parent refuses to feed their child, resulting in death.Interpreting the elements clause to exclude crimes of omission would exclude traditional violent crimes from its reach, contradicting the ordinary meaning of “crime of violence” that Congress intended to capture. Additionally, the word “use” does not necessarily require affirmative action; when someone deliberately causes harm through inaction, they are employing force as their instrument to accomplish their purpose.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined.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: Must the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U-S-C § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U-S-C § 7261(b)(1)?The case was decided on March 5, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Department of Veterans Affairs' determination that evidence regarding a disability claim is in “approximate balance” is a factual determination subject to clear-error review by the Veterans Court. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The statute at issue, 38 U-S-C §7261(b)(1), requires the Veterans Court to “take due account” of the VA's application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. This provision does not establish a new standard of review but instead directs the Veterans Court to review such determinations under the standards in §7261(a), which provides for de novo review of legal questions and clear-error review of factual findings. Determining whether evidence is in approximate balance involves both legal and factual components, as the VA must marshal and weigh evidence while also applying the legal “approximate balance” standard. Because this determination is primarily factual, clear-error review is appropriate.Petitioners argued that the Veterans Court should review the "approximate balance" determination de novo, comparing it to judicial review of probable-cause determinations, but this analogy is flawed. The probable-cause inquiry involves substantial legal reasoning and constitutional concerns, whereas the VA's assessment of evidence balance is specific to each case and lacks broader legal implications. The statute's language does not support imposing de novo review, nor does the canon against surplusage justify a different reading. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.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: Is a party who obtains a preliminary injunction a “prevailing party” for purposes of being entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U-S-C § 1988?The case was decided on February 25, 2025.The Supreme Court held that a party that receives a preliminary injunction but does not obtain a final judgment on the merits before a case becomes moot is not a "prevailing party" eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U-S-C §1988(b). Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The term “prevailing party” in §1988(b) refers to a party who obtains enduring judicial relief that conclusively resolves their claim on the merits. Preliminary injunctions do not qualify because they merely preserve the status quo temporarily while predicting likelihood of success—they do not conclusively determine rights. Importantly, a “prevailing party” traditionally means one who "successfully prosecutes the action" or "successfully maintains" their claim "at the end" of proceedings, not one who achieves temporary success at intermediate stages.External events that render a case moot do not transform a preliminary injunction into the kind of judicial success that warrants attorney's fees. For a party to “prevail” under §1988(b), both the change in legal relationship between parties and the permanence of that change must result from judicial order, not from outside circumstances.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined.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 Florida S.B. 7072's content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment, and do the law's individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment? The case was decided on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court held that The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded, because neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to the Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the Court. Under precedents like Miami Herald v Tornillo, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v Public Utilities Commission, Turner Broadcasting v FCC, and Hurley v Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, when a private entity engages in expressive activity, including curating others' speech, government interference with that activity implicates the First Amendment. Specifically, the First Amendment protects entities engaged in expressive activities, including compiling and curating others' speech, from being forced to accommodate messages they prefer to exclude. This protection applies even when the compiler includes most items and excludes only a few. The government cannot justify interfering with a private speaker's editorial choices merely by claiming an interest in improving or balancing the marketplace of ideas. These principles likely apply to the content moderation practices of social media platforms like Facebook's News Feed, indicating that state laws regulating these practices may face significant First Amendment hurdles. However, this analysis may not apply to all of the laws' applications, so it is important for courts to conduct a thorough examination of the laws' full scope and their constitutional and unconstitutional applications in a proper facial challenge analysis. Texas's regulation of social media platforms' content moderation policies aims to alter the speech displayed on these platforms, reflecting the state's disapproval of the platforms' current content selection and moderation practices. However, under the First Amendment, Texas cannot impose its preferences on how private entities curate and present speech, as this would amount to government control over the expression of ideas. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority opinion in full and authored a separate concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority opinion in part and authored a separate concurrence. Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Samuel Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

This Day in Legal History: Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.On January 24, 1916, the United States Supreme Court issued a pivotal decision in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. This case arose after Frank Brushaber, a shareholder of Union Pacific Railroad, filed suit against the company to challenge the federal income tax imposed on its earnings. Brushaber argued that the tax violated the Constitution by not being apportioned among the states in accordance with Article I, Section 9. His challenge directly questioned the recently ratified 16th Amendment, which granted Congress the authority to tax incomes without apportionment.In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Edward Douglass White rejected Brushaber's claims, affirming that the 16th Amendment eliminated the requirement for income taxes to be apportioned among the states. The Court emphasized that the amendment did not create a new power of taxation but clarified Congress's authority to levy such taxes directly.This decision was a turning point in U.S. legal and financial history, solidifying the federal government's ability to collect income taxes as a primary source of revenue. It set the stage for the modern tax system and allowed for the growth of federal programs funded through taxation. By resolving disputes surrounding the 16th Amendment, Brushaber helped ensure the stability of income taxation as a legal and constitutional practice.A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked a controversial executive order issued by President Donald Trump seeking to end birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. The order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” denies citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents lack legal status, are in the country temporarily, or if both parents fail to meet citizenship or residency criteria. This policy would leave thousands of American-born children stateless, without access to federal benefits, or documentation like passports, effectively excluding them from many civic rights and responsibilities.Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour declared the order "blatantly unconstitutional," citing the clear language of the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent, such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which reaffirmed birthright citizenship regardless of parental status. The executive order, effective February 19, 2025, has drawn multiple lawsuits from states and advocacy groups. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, joined by Oregon, Illinois, and Arizona, among others, emphasized that the order could deprive an estimated 150,000 children nationally of citizenship annually. This includes 4,000 children in Washington state alone.The order also demands that federal agencies refuse to issue documents recognizing citizenship to these individuals, which state officials argue oversteps presidential authority and contradicts constitutional protections. Plaintiffs highlight significant harm to state-funded healthcare, education, and welfare programs, as federal support for these services is tied to recognized citizenship status. The ruling echoes previous legal challenges to Trump-era policies, such as the blocked travel bans, underscoring judicial limits on executive power in shaping immigration and constitutional rights​​.Judge in Seattle blocks Trump order on birthright citizenship nationwideUS judge temporarily blocks Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the government to enforce the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), requiring millions of businesses to disclose their beneficial ownership to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The Court stayed an injunction that had blocked the law's enforcement, enabling the government to proceed while litigation continues in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral arguments scheduled for March 25. However, the January 13 filing deadline remains suspended.Justice Neil Gorsuch supported the stay, suggesting the Court resolve the legality of nationwide injunctions in such cases. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing the government hadn't demonstrated urgency for immediate implementation. The CTA mandates most U.S. businesses incorporated before 2024—and approximately five million new annual incorporations—to report ownership details, with noncompliance subject to penalties. FinCEN estimates that 32.6 million entities will need to comply, though 10 million have already submitted information voluntarily.The CTA aims to combat financial crimes by curbing the misuse of anonymous shell companies, a measure supported by transparency advocates. Critics, including businesses and advocacy groups, argue the law infringes on constitutional rights. Texas Top Cop Shop Inc., represented by the Center for Individual Rights, has challenged the law's constitutionality.  The law's enforcement has been turbulent, with multiple court rulings and delayed deadlines. FinCEN has encouraged voluntary reporting during this period, warning of fines of $500 per day for noncompliance if enforcement resumes. Meanwhile, businesses and advisors have been urged to preemptively file to avoid potential technical issues when mandatory compliance takes effect.Supreme Court Allows Corporate Transparency Act Enforcement (1)President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 23, 2025, creating a cryptocurrency working group tasked with drafting new regulations and exploring the establishment of a national cryptocurrency stockpile. The order aims to overhaul U.S. digital asset policy, a key promise from Trump's campaign. It protects banking services for crypto companies, bans the creation of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and pushes for clear regulatory frameworks for digital assets, including stablecoins.The order also directs the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to rescind guidance that had imposed high costs on companies safeguarding crypto assets, a move welcomed by the industry. Venture capitalist and former PayPal executive David Sacks was named chair of the working group, which includes leaders from the Treasury Department, SEC, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission.This directive marks a shift from the previous administration's stricter stance on cryptocurrencies, which included lawsuits against major exchanges like Coinbase and Binance for alleged violations of U.S. law. Industry leaders and policymakers applauded the move, viewing it as a significant step toward mainstream adoption of digital assets and the development of consistent regulations.  The executive order also mentions evaluating the creation of a digital asset stockpile potentially sourced from cryptocurrencies seized by law enforcement, though details on its implementation remain unclear. Bitcoin's price reached record highs earlier in the week, reflecting investor optimism over Trump's pro-crypto administration.Trump orders crypto working group to draft new regulations, explore national stockpile | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach. Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach (1732–1795), often referred to as the "Bückeburg Bach," was the ninth son of Johann Sebastian Bach and a distinguished composer in his own right. Born in Leipzig, Johann Christoph Friedrich grew up immersed in music under the tutelage of his father, yet he developed a unique style that bridged the Baroque and Classical eras. He spent most of his career at the court of Schaumburg-Lippe in Bückeburg, where he served as Konzertmeister and later as Kapellmeister. His music, characterized by elegance and charm, often reflected the tastes of the emerging Classical period while retaining the counterpoint and depth of his father's influence.Bach composed a variety of works, including symphonies, keyboard pieces, and chamber music, yet his output remains relatively underappreciated compared to his more famous siblings, such as Carl Philipp Emanuel and Wilhelm Friedemann. Johann Christoph Friedrich passed away on January 26, 1795, leaving behind a legacy of compositions that deserve wider recognition.For this week's closing theme, we've chosen his Flute Sonata in D minor, HW VIII/3.1 - I. Allegretto non troppo, arranged for trumpet, cello, and harpsichord. This arrangement brings new energy to Bach's graceful and lyrical lines, blending the interplay of the trumpet's bright tones with the rich warmth of the cello and the intricate textures of the harpsichord. The Allegretto non troppo exemplifies Johann Christoph Friedrich's ability to balance expressive melodies with delicate intricacies, creating music that is both accessible and profound. As we remember his contributions to music on the anniversary of his passing, let this piece inspire reflection on the enduring artistry of the Bach family.Without further ado, Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach's Flute Sonata in D minor, HW VIII/3.1 - I. Allegretto non troppo, 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

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office, and if so, to what extent? The case was decided on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court held that a former U-S President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court majority, concluded that a former President has some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. This immunity stems primarily from constitutional separation of powers principles and precedents recognizing similar immunities in civil contexts. The President has absolute immunity from prosecution for actions taken pursuant to his exclusive constitutional powers, such as pardoning offenses or removing executive officers. This absolute immunity exists because Congress cannot criminalize, and courts cannot review, the President's exercise of these core constitutional authorities. For official actions outside the President's exclusive constitutional powers, there is at least a presumptive immunity from prosecution. This presumptive immunity is rooted in the need to ensure the President can perform his duties without undue caution or distraction, as established in cases like Nixon v Fitzgerald. The government may attempt to rebut this presumption by demonstrating that prosecution would not unduly intrude on executive functions. However, evidence of immune official acts cannot be used to prove liability for unofficial acts, as this would undermine the purpose of the immunity. Finally, drawing on Clinton v Jones, the Court affirmed that the President has no immunity for actions taken in an unofficial or personal capacity. To apply this framework, courts must carefully analyze alleged conduct to determine whether it qualifies as official or unofficial. The Court rejected both Trump's argument for broader immunity absent impeachment and conviction, and the government's contention that the President has no immunity from criminal prosecution whatsoever. Instead, it established a nuanced approach requiring case-by-case analysis of presidential conduct to determine the applicable level of immunity, if any. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurrence to highlight that he believes the Special Counsel's prosecution of Trump may be unconstitutional because there are serious questions about whether the office of the Special Counsel was properly “established by Law” as required by the Constitution's Appointments Clause. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a separate opinion concurring in part to argue that rather than framing the issue as “immunity,” the Court should have adopted a two-step analysis for assessing the validity of criminal charges against a President for official acts: first determining if the relevant statute applies to the President's conduct, and then evaluating whether prosecuting the President under that statute would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented because she believes the majority's decision to grant former Presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts is unjustified by constitutional text, history, or precedent, and dangerously places the President above the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented because she believes the majority's creation of a new “Presidential accountability model” that sometimes exempts Presidents from criminal law for official acts fundamentally alters the balance of power, undermines the rule of law, and risks incentivizing presidential abuses of power. 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 a plaintiff's claim under the Administrative Procedure Act “first accrue” under 28 U-S-C § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule, or when the rule first causes harm to the plaintiff? The case was decided on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court held that an Administrative Procedures Act claim does not accrue for purposes of 28 U-S-C §2401(a) until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The text of 28 U-S-C §2401(a) states that a civil action against the United States must be filed "within six years after the right of action first accrues." The Court interpreted this language according to its traditional meaning in the context of statutes of limitations, concluding that a right of action "accrues" when the plaintiff has a "complete and present cause of action"—that is, when the plaintiff has the right to file suit and obtain relief. For an Administrative Procedures Act claim, this requires both final agency action (as specified in 5 U-S-C § 704) and an injury to the plaintiff (as required by 5 U-S-C § 702). The Court rejected arguments that APA claims should be treated differently from other civil actions against the government, emphasizing that § 2401(a) uses standard accrual language that had a well-settled meaning when it was enacted in 1948. The Court also distinguished § 2401(a) from other statutes that explicitly start the clock at the time of final agency action, noting that Congress chose different language for §2401(a). By interpreting "accrues" consistently with its traditional meaning, the Court concluded that an APA claim does not accrue until the plaintiff has both experienced an injury and the agency action causing that injury has become final. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion in full and wrote a separate concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe.

This Day in Legal History: Cicero is BornOn January 3, 106 BC, Marcus Tullius Cicero, one of ancient Rome's most influential lawyers, orators, and statesmen, was born in Arpinum, a small town southeast of Rome. Cicero's life and work laid the foundations for modern legal and political thought, intertwining law, philosophy, and rhetoric. As a novus homo (the first in his family to achieve senatorial rank), Cicero rose through the Roman cursus honorum, eventually serving as consul in 63 BC. His tenure is most remembered for his decisive action in quelling the Catiline Conspiracy, a plot to overthrow the Republic.Cicero's legal career was marked by his exceptional eloquence and emphasis on justice. His speeches, such as those in defense of Sextus Roscius and against Verres, revealed his dedication to exposing corruption and advocating for fairness. Beyond his courtroom success, Cicero's philosophical treatises, including De Legibus (On the Laws), explored the nature of justice and the rule of law. His writings profoundly influenced thinkers of the Enlightenment and modern legal systems.In one of his letters, Cicero wrote to his friend – one of his most famous quotes:“What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even if it enables you to rule the world.”This succinct insight captures his belief in the universality of law as a moral and societal cornerstone.Cicero's life was not without turmoil. His opposition to Julius Caesar's dictatorship and later to Mark Antony cost him dearly. He was executed in 43 BC during the proscriptions. Cicero endures not only as a towering figure in law and politics but also as one of those ancient philosophers whose works people skim through, extract a handful of pithy quotes, and then relentlessly share at dinner parties or on social media. His knack for universal truths ensures his words still resonate, even as they occasionally overstay their welcome in the mouths of exhausting folks.President Biden plans to issue an executive order permanently banning new offshore oil and gas development in specific U.S. coastal waters. This move, based on the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, is intended to be difficult for future administrations to reverse and comes as Biden seeks to solidify his environmental legacy in the final weeks of his presidency. The protections aim to safeguard marine ecosystems, protect vulnerable coastal communities, and combat climate change, aligning with calls from environmental groups and congressional Democrats. While Biden's actions will not affect existing leases, the scope of the new protections is expected to include key areas like parts of the Pacific near California and the eastern Gulf of Mexico near Florida. Conservationists have praised the move as a necessary step to protect U.S. waters, while oil industry advocates argue it jeopardizes energy independence. Former President Donald Trump is likely to attempt reversing the order, though previous court rulings suggest such efforts may face significant legal hurdles. Offshore drilling remains a contentious issue, with opposition particularly strong in coastal regions reliant on tourism.Biden to Ban More Offshore Oil Drilling Before Trump Arrives (1)A group of Tesla shareholders is appealing a Delaware Chancery Court decision that voided Elon Musk's $56 billion pay package, which would have been the largest CEO compensation in U.S. history. Filed on December 31, the appeal also challenges Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick's $345 million award in attorneys' fees. McCormick had ruled that Tesla's board and Musk breached fiduciary duties to investors when approving the massive compensation plan. Despite shareholder approval votes in 2018 and 2024, the court found the deal unfairly tilted in Musk's favor. The plaintiffs, including ARK Investment Management LLC and individual investors, argue the appeal is necessary to restore shareholder voting rights and accountability.Attorneys for the shareholders assert that over 70% of investors supported the pay package in two separate votes, emphasizing the high level of approval. Legal representation for Musk, the board, and opposing shareholders have yet to respond to requests for comment. The appeal seeks to overturn a ruling that has intensified debates about executive compensation and corporate governance.Elon Musk Pay Deal Decision Appealed to Delaware High Court (1)The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 docket includes pivotal labor and employment cases addressing workplace discrimination, wage law exemptions, and employee benefits. Among the key issues is whether workers from "majority backgrounds," like white or heterosexual individuals, face higher hurdles in proving discrimination claims under Title VII. The Court's decision could reshape lawsuits challenging diversity policies. Another case will decide if retirees can sue former employers for disability bias, as exemplified by a Florida firefighter denied benefits. This issue has divided lower courts on whether retirees meet the Americans with Disabilities Act's requirements. Wage law exemptions are also under review, with the Court considering the evidentiary standard employers must meet to prove workers are exempt from overtime protections.Additionally, justices will address the standards for lawsuits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), involving allegations of excessive fees in retirement plans. These cases could have broad implications for labor law, corporate practices, and workplace equity, shaping the rights of employees and obligations of employers across the nation.Reverse bias, wage law exemptions top US Supreme Court's 2025 labor docket | ReutersThe U.S. Judicial Conference declined to refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice over allegations of ethics violations related to unreported gifts and luxury travel from a wealthy benefactor. The Conference cited amendments Thomas made to his financial disclosure reports, addressing issues raised by Democratic lawmakers. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson faced similar scrutiny over omissions in her reports but had also filed corrections, leading to the rejection of a referral request against her.Democratic lawmakers argued that Thomas's failure to disclose violated the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, but Thomas stated he was advised such disclosures were unnecessary for "personal hospitality." He committed to following updated guidelines in future filings. The Judicial Conference pointed to its recent efforts to clarify financial disclosure rules and noted Thomas's compliance with the new standards.The body also raised constitutional concerns about its authority to refer the matter to the DOJ, further noting the issue was moot since lawmakers had already requested an investigation directly from Attorney General Merrick Garland. Critics accused the judiciary of failing to hold Thomas accountable, while the judiciary emphasized the ongoing improvements to ethical oversight.US Supreme Court's Thomas will not be referred to Justice Department | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Strauss Jr. This week's closing theme celebrates Johann Strauss Jr., affectionately known as the "Waltz King," whose music epitomizes the charm and elegance of 19th-century Vienna. Born in 1825 into a musical dynasty, Strauss Jr. surpassed his father's legacy, becoming one of the most celebrated composers of light music. His works captured the spirit of Viennese high society, turning the waltz from a simple dance into an art form beloved across Europe.Strauss's compositions, such as The Blue Danube and Tales from the Vienna Woods, are synonymous with refinement and festivity, making him a perennial favorite for New Year's concerts worldwide. His waltzes are not merely music for dancing; they evoke vivid imagery, from shimmering ballrooms to idyllic countryside scenes. Known for his melodic genius and rhythmic vitality, Strauss's music remains a joyful celebration of life and beauty.This week, we highlight a medley of Strauss Jr.'s waltzes, a perfect encapsulation of his artistry and his gift for weaving together effervescent themes. It's a chance to immerse yourself in the glittering world of 19th-century Vienna and to reflect on the enduring magic of his music. Whether as a tribute to the New Year or simply an appreciation of Strauss's timeless melodies, this medley invites us to waltz into the weekend with grace and exuberance.Without further ado, a waltz medley by the Waltz King – Johann Strauss Jr.  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

The "Sound of Ideas" is sharing some of their favorite segments from 2024, and among those were conversations with Ketanji Brown Jackson, Amy Tan, and a discussion about NPR's "Books We Love."

Hello Wholigans! On today's episode of Who's There, our weekly call-in show, we share the news that Kristin Davis will be launching a new SATC rewatch podcast. Bob says she gets an exemption to the No More Celebrity Podcasts rule, but Lindsey disagrees (before calling him a Charlotte). Moving on, we take your calls about Olivia Ponton, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's appearance on Broadway, Chlöe Bailey's new boyfriend, whether or not anyone should check in on both Giada De Laurentiis and Alexa Demie, Remy Ma's feud with Claressa Shield, and alllllll those Who Men in the new Alex Garland movie Warfare. We even play a very fun and difficult game devised by a Wholigan at the end of the episode. As always, call in at 619.WHO.THEM to leave questions, comments & concerns for a future episode of Who's There?. Get a ton of bonus content over on Patreon.com/WhoWeekly To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After an eventful 2024, the justices are now on winter break until Jan. 10. "Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson, Lydia Wheeler, and Greg Stohr review all the biggest news stories from the justices in 2024, from Justice Samuel Alito's flag controversy to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dream-come-true Broadway debut. They also look ahead to the cases to be heard in 2025, which include an expedited appeal over the social media platform TikTok to another case that could cut back the power of administrative agencies. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Thank You Episode SponsorsWisdom Nutrition https://trywisdomnow.com/toddStock up on Wisdom for 33% off plus free shipping. Visit trywisdomnow.com/todd.Alan's Soaps https://www.alansartisansoaps.comUse coupon code ‘TODD' to save an additional 10% off the bundle price.Bioptimizers https://bioptimizers.com/toddGive your body the magnesium it craves with Magnesium Breakthrough.  Visit bioptimizers.com/todd and save an extra 10% with promo code TODD.Bonefrog https://bonefrogcoffee.com/toddMake Bonefrog Cold Brew at home!  Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions.Bulwark Capital Bulwark Capital Management (bulwarkcapitalmgmt.com)Get a second opinion on the health of your retirement portfolio today.  Schedule your free Know Your Risk Portfolio review go to KnowYourRiskRadio.com today.My Pillow https://mypillow.com/toddUse promo code TODD to save big on the entire MyPillow classic Collection with the Standard starting at only $14.88.  Renue Healthcare https://renue.healthcare/toddYour journey to a better life starts at Renue Healthcare. Visit renue.healthcare/ToddKetanji Brown Jackson is DEI, and DEI is Ketanji Brown Jackson… and she's in a play. Also, we'll revisit the quote of the decade: Martha Raddats, do you hear yourself now? Finally, did The Chosen suggest that Jesus doubted God the Father's plan?Episode Links:On Jan 21st, we as Americans should come together and support Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson resigning from the SCOTUS and pursuing her real passion, acting! A bright future awaits her in the Broadway niche of Queer remakes Police in Aurora, CO have detained 14 people at the apartment complex taken over by Tren de Aragua after a string of violent home invasions. They even found victims TIED UP AND STABBED. TRUMP WAS RIGHT.New clip from the TV show 'The Chosen' has Jesus telling Judas Iscariot this super unbiblical thing.'The Chosen' sparks controversy as critics label scene between Jesus, Judas 'unbiblical'

A Supreme Court case on medical care for transgender youth could have major ramifications – not only for children who have gender dysphoria and their families but also for how other statutes are reviewed under the Equal Protection Clause. In this episode, Amanda and Holly examine the oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, breaking down key moments in the heated courtroom exchanges, examining the specific constitutional question in this case, and discussing the broader implications of the possible ruling. While the specific question in this case involves the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and not the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, religion and religious arguments often loom large in cases that involve sexual orientation or gender identity.  SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The stakes of Skrmetti and the specific question presented For more on the atmosphere surrounding the case, read this piece from Mark Walsh for SCOTUSblog: Inside the Supreme Court arguments on transgender care Visit the website of the National Archives for more information on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.    Segment 2 (starting at 07:17): The heated oral arguments The U.S. Supreme Court heard U.S. v. Skrmetti on Dec. 4, 2024. The Supreme Court's website has links to listen to the oral arguments or read a transcript of the arguments. We played four clips from the courtroom: The opening argument of Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (from 00:00:10 in the oral argument) A question and statement from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 01:41:25 in the oral argument) The opening argument of Matthew Rice, Solicitor General for the state of Tennessee (from at 01:45:26 in the oral argument) An exchange between Matthew Rice and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 02:10:17 in the oral argument) Holly mentioned the Bostock v. Clayton County decision from 2020, which interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Holly and Amanda discussed the decision in episode 17 of season 1, titled “A landmark case for LGTBQ rights: What's next for religious liberty?”   Segment 3 (starting 39:57): Thank you to our listeners  Our most-listened to episode in 2024 was episode 21 of season 5, titled “But … is it Christian nationalism?”  Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

On this week's Mean Age Daydream, Brian takes a look at the latest shooting event, which mirrors several others in the political makeup of the shooter, and the target. Also in this ep: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson manages to embarrass herself OFF the bench in a cringe acting role, and Dems call for the Electoral College to be killed off. And finally: Naughty Dog studios' new "Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet" game showcases just how broken Western gaming studios have become after woke DEI purges. Help support what we do and grow our show! https://patreon.com/lionsofliberty OR support us on Locals! https://lionsofliberty.locals.com/ Subscribe to the all new FIRST EPISODE PODCAST! https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/ENTS... First Episode Pod on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-5679432 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week's Mean Age Daydream, Brian takes a look at the latest shooting event, which mirrors several others in the political makeup of the shooter, and the target. Also in this ep: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson manages to embarrass herself OFF the bench in a cringe acting role, and Dems call for the Electoral College to be killed off. And finally: Naughty Dog studios' new "Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet" game showcases just how broken Western gaming studios have become after woke DEI purges. Help support what we do and grow our show! https://patreon.com/lionsofliberty OR support us on Locals! https://lionsofliberty.locals.com/ Subscribe to the all new FIRST EPISODE PODCAST! https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/ENTS... First Episode Pod on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-5679432 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently made her Broadway debut in a special one-night performance of “& Juliet.” Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman on the Supreme Court, fulfilled a lifelong dream of stepping onto the theater stage. “I feel very much in my element,” she told CBS News. Reflecting on her love for theater, Jackson said she was always performing as a child and felt deeply connected to the theater community. The experience included rehearsals, choreography, and vocal training, culminating in appearances in two scenes of the hit musical. Jackson said, “It's a story about female empowerment… to control their own destiny.” In her memoir, "Lovely One," Jackson recalls taking drama classes with Matt Damon at Harvard, balancing her love of theater and law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The search for answers continues as mysterious drones have now been spotted in at least six states. Local authorities are urging the federal government to give them more control over their skies, wanting them to extend investigative authority to state and local officials. CBS News' Tom Hanson has the latest.The FBI and Department of Homeland Security say there is "no evidence of a current threat to public safety" or of foreign influence regarding the mysterious drones that have been spotted in at least six states. Still, lawmakers are putting new pressure on security agencies for answers.Americans use butter more this time of year than any other time. Last year, the cost of butter was up 16% in November and December, and this year the cost of butter and other baking ingredients have jumped. CBS News' Nancy Chen explains why.Fulfilling a childhood dream, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took the Broadway stage in "& Juliet." Vladimer Duthiers spoke with her at the Civilian Hotel in New York ahead of her first rehearsal for the debut.For nearly 40 years, Mike Pedersen has brought Christmas cheer to one of South Dakota's smallest towns, hosting caroling at the Nora Store. David Begnaud has the story.Over a career spanning more than half a century, Francis Ford Coppola has created cinematic masterpieces. "CBS Mornings" spoke with him about his legacy and Kennedy Center honor.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week, we're live at Carnegie with Not My Job guest Ketanji Brown Jackson and panelists Joyelle Nicole Johnson, Mo Rocca, and Paula PoundstoneLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent on the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action in 2023, cited a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) concluding that black infants are more likely to survive if they are cared for by black doctors than white doctors. But a recent study using the same data suggests that race was not the real factor. This week, Naomi and Ian are joined by George J. Borjas, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, to discuss his recent paper co-authored with Robert VerBruggen, “Do Black Newborns Fare Better with Black Doctors? The Limits of Measuring Racial Concordance.” Originally part of a project analyzing the fragility of empirical findings in social science, George's study reanalyzes the same data used in the PNAS study to see whether the same result emerged. He and VerBruggen found that if the data is adjusted for low birthweight, the correlation between race of the doctor and infant survival disappeared. Their research has now been published by the National Academy of Sciences. George discusses how the narrative about the original study persists even when new data has called it into question. Resources● Do Black Newborns Fare Better with Black Doctors? The Limits of Measuring Racial Concordance | George J. Borjas and Robert VerBruggen ● Are Black Newborns More Likely to Survive with Black Doctors? | George J. Borjas and Robert VerBruggenShow Notes● 00:47 | How did you become interested in the topic of mortality rates among black newborns? What did you find in your study?● 05:50 | Why did your study find different results using the same data as the earlier one?● 07:57 | Why did the original authors not include low birthweight as a factor in their study?● 08:48 | What did you find about the distribution of doctors to women whose infants had low birthweight?● 11:01 | Have you shared this new finding with the original authors of the study?● 13:35 | Given that low birthweight is a universally accepted factor in infant mortality, are you surprised that the original result that black infants do better when they are matched with black doctors was so widely accepted?● 17:17 | Has your study received the same kind of attention as the original study?● 18:40 | Can we empirically answer the question of whether the specialties of doctors and their respective races is the driver of better results for black infants, rather than just the race itself?

In the 3rd hour of the Marc Cox Morning Show * MSNBC is concerned for Pete Hegseth * Jared Halpern from FOX News Radio, joins Marc to discuss President Biden's overseas trip. * Marc & Sue talk about Sue's recent water bill at a new house she bought, yet no one is living there yet. * Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson likens denying transgender surgeries to denying interracial marriages Coming Up: Steve Harrigan and Griff Jenkins

Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief at The Federalist, Fox News contributor, and co-author of Justice on Trial, joined The Guy Benson Show to weigh in on the ongoing SCOTUS case involving childhood gender transition surgeries. Benson and Hemingway discussed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's questionable comparison between said youth transition surgeries and interracial marriages. Hemingway also discussed the liberal media's relentless smears against Pete Hegseth following his selection as Secretary of Defense and how these accusations echo the unfounded attacks on Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Finally, Mollie shared her thoughts on President Biden's pardon of his son, Hunter, and you can listen to the full interview below! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tony joins the show to talk about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson defending 'gender affirming care' in Tennessee and more. The Tony Kinnett Cast every weekday at 7pm on WIBC. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

12 - The LPGA is shutting down the notion that a transgender woman can play on the tour. 1205 - More on some Trump nomination news and trials in court today. 1210 - Some discourse on how the Person of The Year votes are going. Who will be caller of the year? 1215 - Side - Famous Henrys 1220 - Why is Pete Hegseth such a hot topic for this confirmation cycle? Your calls. 1235 - Activist and former UPenn swimmer Paula Scanlan joins us to discuss Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's comments likening child transition laws to interracial marriage. Dom and Paula go back and forth on the nonsense spouted by left-wing advocates on the issue. How does Paula feel about the LPGA stating that biological men will not be allowed on the tour? 1250 - Quick preview as to what's to come. 1 - Some audio from the Central Bucks School District voting out Karen Smith as we welcome in former Pennridge SD president Joan Cullen. What was the policy over students wanting to change names or pronouns? Her and Dom discuss the ongoing soap opera 110 - We play audio of chicago residents laying into the mayor on fighting Trump on deporting illegals from their city. 120 - Rockyfest is underway. Why is the Rocky statue placed where it is? Does the art museum not appreciate the art of the Rocky statue? It's a draw for locals and tourists alike! What if a Frank Rizzo statue was there instead? Your side question answers. North Wildwood finally caved to Phil Murphy Climate Cronies after being financially burdened by the state, unlike what WHYY reported. 130 - Enough sympathy for Hunter Biden! 140 - Your calls on the side question. 150 - Dan time, conspiracy time. 2 - Scott Jennings, CNN correspondent, joins the program to kick off the final hour. What is it like being “the heel” of sorts on a late-night CNN show? Scott details the smearing condescension that comes out of Democrats when someone offers an opposing view to the left wing status quo, as well as their inability to speak with everyday people. Will Pete Hegseth be pushed through on his nomination? Who does Scott think will appeal to Americans after they are sworn into Trump's cabinet? Scott details new ventures he's getting into in order to restore unbiased journalism. 215 - Money Melody! 220 - Winner! 235 - Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, joins us today to discuss their battle with Fani Willis, among other anti-Trump prosecutors that seem to be hiding something. How does Tom feel about the improper use or even abuse of our agencies to go after everyday Americans? What should be done with these bloated agencies? Tom details his personal battle with agencies like the FBI, who even came to house for criticizing the government! 250 - Lightning Round!

12 - The LPGA is shutting down the notion that a transgender woman can play on the tour. 1205 - More on some Trump nomination news and trials in court today. 1210 - Some discourse on how the Person of The Year votes are going. Who will be caller of the year? 1215 - Side - Famous Henrys 1220 - Why is Pete Hegseth such a hot topic for this confirmation cycle? Your calls. 1235 - Activist and former UPenn swimmer Paula Scanlan joins us to discuss Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's comments likening child transition laws to interracial marriage. Dom and Paula go back and forth on the nonsense spouted by left-wing advocates on the issue. How does Paula feel about the LPGA stating that biological men will not be allowed on the tour? 1250 - Quick preview as to what's to come.

This week, the Special Counsel's office and Donald Trump's lawyers filed their joint status report with Judge Chutkan in the DC case outlining how they think the rest of this proceeding should go; Judge Chutkan ruled on the schedule; Jim Jordan sent  a letter to Merrick Garland saying that the superseding indictment violates DOJ policy; and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson comments publicly about the SCOTUS immunity ruling.Plus, listener questions.  Questions about Jim Jordan's letter to DoJ(202) 225-6906 – Ask for Jim Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ AMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfGood to know:Rule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady MaterialBrady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJenksJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Gigliohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/g/giglio-information/Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C. § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's new memoir, Lovely One, gives us a rare glimpse into her legal mind. And she gets personal about her childhood, marriage and her time as a public defender. Also, we hear from writer Danzy Senna, who writes about the experiences of being biracial in America and the meaning of race itself. Her new novel Colored Television. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson talks with Tonya Mosley about her teen years, her time as a public defender, and the poem she keeps in her office. Her new memoir is called Lovely One.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Today is a big day! Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joins Glennon and Amanda to share her deeply personal journey to becoming the first Black woman Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.   Discover: How four misspelled words changed her entire world view;   How the angel she encountered for 5 seconds at Harvard kept her striving; What her Autistic daughter taught her about living well; Her grandmother's advice that keeps her undistracted by the unfairness she faces; and How the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling affects democracy. Justice Jackson's beautiful new memoir, Lovely One, is out today! On the Guest: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received her undergraduate and law degrees, both with honors, from Harvard University, then served as a law clerk for three federal judges, practiced law in the private sector, worked as Commissioner of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and served as an assistant federal public defender. President Obama nominated Justice Jackson to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2021, Justice Jackson made history in 2022 when President Biden nominated her as an Associate Justice. One of only 115 people in history to have the job – and the Black woman ever to have the job – she was confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and took her seat on June 30, 2022. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tuesday on the News Hour, Ukraine renews its plea for long-range weapons from the U.S. after two Russian missile strikes kill dozens. Geoff Bennett sits down with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to discuss her memoir detailing her journey to become the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. Plus, former President Trump asserts that he had every right to interfere in the 2020 election. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Megyn Kelly begins the show by discussing the very real possibility President Joe Biden could drop out as the nominee by the end of the week, as corporate media outlets favorable to Biden are now calling for him to drop out. But will he listen? Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk, author of "Right Wing Revolution," joins to talk about whether Democratic politicians will start turning on Biden, the corporate media no longer willing to engage in the Biden cognitive decline cover-up anymore, whether it could be Jill Biden that takes over as the nominee, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski pushing ridiculous pro-Biden spin this morning, one Biden surrogate assuring there's a "team of people that will help govern," who really might be running the country, whether Democrats will look to avoid a "Ruth Bader Ginsburg" situation by pushing Biden out as nominee, the initial calls for Biden to step down but then the push to blame Biden's advisers, Trump's smart debate strategy of letting Biden fail, CNN moderators' surprisingly strong performance, the massive ruling for Trump when it comes to immunity, the difference between official and unofficial acts as president, how the ruling could affect the Georgia and Florida cases too, Justice Clarence Thomas' warning to Jack Smith as part of the SCOTUS immunity ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's alarming recent judicial rulings, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining with the conservatives on January 6 ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor "treason" comment, and more. Kirk- https://45books.com/