Podcasts about justice ketanji brown jackson

Transgender rights suffered a major loss at the US Supreme Court after its opinion in the Skrmetti case. But some advocates for transgender rights found reasons within the opinion to believe their cause might fare better in future cases. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler get into the details of this opinion on the latest episode of their podcast. They also talk about the other opinions we got from the court this week, including one in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an impassioned dissent on the issue of standing. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Did the Supreme Court really make it easier for straight white folks to bring reverse discrimination claims? Kind of, yes. In this week's episode, Imani and Jess explain the Court's unanimous reverse discrimination decision, and why it matters that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote it.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here.

Did the Supreme Court really make it easier for straight white folks to bring reverse discrimination claims? Kind of, yes. In this week's episode, Imani and Jess explain the Court's unanimous reverse discrimination decision, and why it matters that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote it.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here.

SummaryWhat if disagreement could actually unite us? Judge Thomas Griffith, former DC Circuit Court judge, joins us to explore the Constitution's genius: its embrace of disagreement as a path to the common good. Judge Griffith shares personal stories from his judicial career, including his bipartisan support for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and dispels the myth of “partisans in robes.” He challenges listeners to defend the Constitution through humility, compromise, and local action, and offers hope for those discouraged by political division.About Our GuestJudge Thomas B. Griffith was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by President George W. Bush in 2005, and served until his retirement in 2020. He is currently a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School, a Fellow at the Wheatley Institute, and Special Counsel at Hunton Andrews Kurth. He is also engaged in rule of law initiatives in Central and Eastern Europe. Earlier in his career, Judge Griffith served as General Counsel of Brigham Young University and as Senate Legal Counsel, the nonpartisan chief legal officer of the U.S. Senate. In 2021, President Biden appointed him to the President's Commission on the Supreme Court. He is also a co-author of Lost, Not Stolen: The Conservative Case that Biden Won and Trump Lost the 2020 Presidential Election. He holds a BA from Brigham Young University and a JD from the University of Virginia School of Law.Useful LinksJudge Griffith's Wikipedia entry:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_B._GriffithBraver Angels – Bridging Political Divides Through Civil Discourse:https://braverangels.orgJudge Griffith's Letter in Support of Justice Jackson: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2.26.22%20-%20Judge%20Thomas%20Griffith%20Support%20for%20Jackson.pdfJudge Griffith's 2012 Speech at BYU, "The Hard Work of Understanding the Constitution": https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/thomas-b-griffith/the-hard-work-of-understanding-the-constitution/ Pleasant Pictures MusicJoin the Pleasant Pictures Music Club to get unlimited access to high-quality, royalty-free music for all of your projects. Use the discount code HOWTOHELP15 for 15% off your first year.

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.The landmark Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services fundamentally reshapes our understanding of workplace discrimination protections. Through a rare unanimous ruling, the Court has powerfully affirmed that every individual—regardless of majority or minority status—stands equal under employment law.What makes this case particularly significant is how it dismantles misconceptions about "reverse discrimination." As we explore in this episode, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act never distinguished between majority and minority groups—it protects individuals. When Marlene Ames, a heterosexual woman, found herself denied promotion and subsequently demoted while LGBTQ+ candidates were favored, she challenged this discrimination all the way to the Supreme Court. Despite losing at lower court levels, her persistence ultimately vindicated a principle too often misunderstood: discrimination against anyone based on protected characteristics is illegal, full stop.The Court's decision, delivered through Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejected the additional burden that some courts had placed on majority plaintiffs to prove "background circumstances" suggesting their employer discriminates against majority groups. This ruling has profound implications for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in American workplaces. While the Court didn't explicitly address DEI, the message is clear—policies that favor certain groups at the expense of others cross legal boundaries. For employees who believe they face discrimination despite belonging to a majority group, this decision provides significant legal backing.Have you experienced workplace discrimination but hesitated to speak up because you belong to a majority group? Understanding your rights is the first step toward workplace equality. Subscribe to the Employee Survival Guide for more insights that empower you to navigate complex workplace dynamics and protect your rights regardless of your background. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a plaintiff who belongs to a majority group need to demonstrate “background circumstances suggesting that the defendant is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?The case was decided on June 5, 2025.The Supreme Court held that In a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ames v Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation without imposing a heightened evidentiary standard for plaintiffs from majority groups. The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision, which had required Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, to demonstrate "background circumstances" suggesting that her employer discriminated against the majority group. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Court, emphasized that Title VII's protections apply equally to all individuals, regardless of group membership. The ruling allows Ames's discrimination claim to proceed in lower courts.This decision clarifies that plaintiffs alleging discrimination under Title VII need not meet additional burdens based on their majority status, thereby potentially broadening the scope for future employment discrimination claims.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

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

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

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to move forward with stripping temporary deportation protections from more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants, marking what legal experts call the largest removal of immigration status for any group in modern U.S. history. The case centers on Temporary Protected Status, or TPS — a designation created for migrants fleeing dangerous conditions. It was expanded under President Joe Biden due to Venezuela's collapsing economy and political chaos. But Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem abruptly reversed it, prompting lawsuits from Venezuelan nationals who say the decision was rooted in racial and political bias. The high court did not explain its reasoning and made no mention of the work permits already granted under the Biden extension. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenter. Is this law — or politics in legal disguise? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

This Day in Legal History: Louisiana Adopts State Constitution, McCarthy Dies, and Birmingham CampaignOn May 2, 1939, Louisiana adopted its current state constitution, known as the Louisiana Constitution of 1921, which at the time marked a significant overhaul of state governance. Though originally adopted in 1921, it underwent critical amendments and re-ratification processes culminating on this date to reflect broader federal constitutional principles, especially concerning civil rights and governance reforms. This version would go on to become one of the most amended constitutions in the U.S., highlighting Louisiana's complex political and legal environment, particularly around issues of race, voting, and economic regulation.On the federal level, on May 2, 1957, Senator Joseph McCarthy died, signaling the end of one of the most controversial chapters in American legal and political history. McCarthy had become the face of the post-war Red Scare, using Senate hearings and investigations to accuse numerous government officials and private citizens of Communist sympathies without substantial evidence. His tactics led to the coining of the term “McCarthyism,” representing the broader trend of reckless accusations without due process, a violation of basic legal protections. His downfall began with the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings, where his aggressive questioning was televised, turning public opinion sharply against him.Also on May 2, 1963, during the Birmingham Campaign, hundreds of African American children and teenagers marched in Birmingham, Alabama, as part of a civil rights strategy to provoke mass arrests and draw national attention to segregation. The police response, using dogs and fire hoses on peaceful demonstrators, shocked the nation and galvanized support for federal civil rights legislation. These events laid crucial groundwork for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which fundamentally altered American legal frameworks surrounding discrimination.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, never one to sugarcoat institutional danger, pulled no punches in a recent address where she warned that political attacks on the judiciary—particularly from Donald Trump and his orbit—aren't just angry outbursts. They're strategic. “Not random,” she emphasized, but seemingly calculated to chill the bench and warp the public's view of judicial independence. Speaking in Puerto Rico at a judges' conference, she framed the threats and harassment against judges as not merely inappropriate, but corrosive to democracy itself—an erosion of the rule of law masquerading as political speech.While Jackson didn't name Trump directly (a nod, perhaps, to judicial decorum), she acknowledged “the elephant in the room.” That elephant has been stomping around the judiciary for years, from defying court orders to demanding impeachments of judges who don't rule his way. Chief Justice John Roberts—no firebrand liberal—has already rebuked Trump this year for trying to undermine judicial authority. Jackson's remarks, which reportedly drew a standing ovation, echoed deeper concerns among legal scholars about an impending constitutional crisis fueled by executive overreach and coordinated judicial delegitimization.With a 6–3 conservative majority still holding firm on the Supreme Court, her comments are more than ideological protest. They're a pointed reminder that the judiciary's legitimacy isn't just under rhetorical attack—it's being targeted as a political obstacle. And in Jackson's view, the stakes couldn't be higher.US Supreme Court Justice Jackson criticizes Trump's attacks on judges | ReutersDonald Trump's judicial conveyor belt is up and running again. Today, May 1, 2025, he announced his first federal judicial nominee since retaking the White House: Whitney Hermandorfer, a conservative legal operative from Tennessee who's clerked for three sitting Supreme Court justices and currently works under the state's Republican Attorney General. If confirmed, she'll take a seat on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—a vacancy that lingered after Biden's nominee stalled amid GOP opposition from Tennessee's own senators.Trump's post on Truth Social didn't mince words: Hermandorfer is a “Fighter,” a term that doubles as both a branding strategy and a judicial philosophy. Her resume backs that up—she's defended Tennessee's abortion ban and fought Biden-era protections for transgender students. Translation: she's been in the legal trenches of the culture war and emerged as a reliable soldier for the right.This nomination is the opening salvo in what could be a new wave of over 100 judicial appointments in Trump's second term, offering him another shot at reshaping the federal bench after appointing 234 judges—including three Supreme Court justices—during his first. Hermandorfer is stepping into a seat vacated by Judge Jane Stranch, an Obama appointee, whose intended successor under Biden, Karla Campbell, never got her Senate vote thanks to a post-election deal between Democrats and Republicans to fast-track some trial court nominees at the cost of four appellate picks.The judicial arms race is back. And this time, the Senate arithmetic—and the vacancies left behind—may tilt even harder in Trump's favor.Trump makes first judicial nomination since returning to White House | ReutersGoogle's legal team is headed to federal court Friday to plead with Judge Leonie Brinkema not to yank apart its advertising tech empire. At stake is nothing short of the future architecture of online advertising. The DOJ is pushing to force Google to divest key parts of its Google Ad Manager, including the ad exchange and publisher ad server—core infrastructure for monetizing digital content. Think of it as ripping out the plumbing from the internet's ad economy.Judge Brinkema has already ruled that Google unlawfully tied its ad server and ad exchange, leveraging its dominance in a way that stifled competition and hurt publishers. Not exactly a glowing endorsement of their market behavior. Still, Google insists that a forced breakup isn't just excessive—it's legally unjustified. Their position is these tools do more than just hawk banner ads, and the DOJ's remedy would be a regulatory overreach.In the backdrop is another case in D.C., where the DOJ is toying with the idea of making Google sell Chrome—the browser—over its search dominance. Google clearly doesn't want a repeat of that nightmare here.So, the message from Mountain View is clear: Let's talk tweaks, not torpedoes. But Brinkema's already signaled she sees systemic harm. Whether that translates into structural remedies—or just more behavioral promises—now depends on how persuasive Google's lawyers can be without sounding like they're defending a monopoly.Google will seek to avoid ad tech spinoff in antitrust case | ReutersThis week's closing theme brings us into the fiery imagination of Hector Berlioz, the 19th-century French composer who lived as intensely as he wrote. Berlioz was a Romantic through and through—equal parts visionary, dramatist, and eccentric. His music defied convention, his orchestration exploded boundaries, and his literary obsession with Goethe's Faust gave rise to one of his most enigmatic and powerful works: La Damnation de Faust (The Damnation of Faust), completed in 1846.Not quite an opera, not quite a cantata, Berlioz called it a "dramatic legend"—a hybrid form that suited his unconventional style and theatrical flair. Drawing from Gérard de Nerval's French translation of Faust, the work traces the tortured scholar's tragic arc: from existential despair, to enchanted pastoral scenes, to infernal damnation, all wrapped in Berlioz's vivid orchestral color. Its fourth part, the “Ride to the Abyss” and “Pandemonium,” is especially striking—a blazing descent into hell that's often performed independently, particularly around Walpurgis Night on April 30 and May 1, when tales of witches' sabbaths and demonic revels echo the scene's imagery.At its premiere, The Damnation of Faust baffled audiences and bombed commercially, though it has since been recognized as one of Berlioz's masterpieces, showcasing his flair for narrative, his taste for the macabre, and his unmatched orchestral daring. It remains a high watermark for musical storytelling without staging—and an apt closer for a week shadowed by ambition, unrest, and devilish bargains.Without further ado, The Damnation of Faust, by Hector Berlioz. 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

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

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

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

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

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.

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