Podcast appearances and mentions of David Souter

Ray Gagnon is back as we talk about the passing of Justice Souter and his New Hampshire connection, the passing of the Pope and election of a new Pope, the Catholic Church(s) in Claremont, learning Latin, Chicken Farm I Love You, crypto $$ and lots more.

We reflect on the death of Justice Souter and sort out some loose ends from the last episode. We then dig into the Court's only opinion from Thursday, Barnes v. Felix, which we previewed with friend of the show Orin Kerr back in February at Stanford. Along the way we make a short detour into generative AI and it's potential for SCOTUS research. Most importantly, we react to the oral argument in Trump v. Casa, the shadow docket case that's about (or, isn't about?) President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. 

Retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter passed away on May 8, 2025, at his home in New Hampshire. In this episode, his former clerks, Judge Kevin Newsom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and Professor Jeannie Suk Gersen of Harvard Law School, join Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation on Justice Souter's life and constitutional legacy. Retired Justice Stephen Breyer also shares memories of his former colleague.  Resources Jeannie Suk Gersen, “Justice Souter Was the Antithesis of the Present,” The New Yorker (May 15, 2025)  Linda Greenhouse, “David H. Souter, Republican Justice Who Allied With Court's Liberal Wing, Dies at 85,” The New York Times (May 9, 2025) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)  Bush v. Gore (2000)  Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate⁠⁠

Could the Trump administration suspend habeas corpus? On this week's Insider episode, Preet is joined by Rachel Barkow, CAFE Contributor and professor at NYU Law School, while Joyce is out. In an excerpt from the show, Preet and Rachel discuss Trump advisor Stephen Miller's comments about suspending the constitutional right to habeas corpus.  Also on the Insider docket: –  Reflections on the legacy of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who passed away last week at age 85; and – The Justice Department's court filing asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone. CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis. Not an Insider? Now more than ever, it's critical to stay tuned. To join a community of reasoned voices in unreasonable times, become an Insider today. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. Head to cafe.com/insider or staytuned.substack.com. Subscribe to our Substack. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network.  Executive Producer: Tamara Sepper; Supervising Producer: Jake Kaplan; Associate Producer: Claudia Hernández; Audio Producer: Nat Weiner; Deputy Editor: Celine Rohr; CAFE Team: David Tatasciore, Matthew Billy, Noa Azulai, and Liana Greenway. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:14 - 14:25)The Death of Justice David Souter: The Reclusive ‘Stealth Justice' Dies at 85Part II (14:25 - 16:16)‘No More Souters': Justice Souter's Appointment Taught Republicans That a Candidate Must Be Conservative in Conviction, Not Just TemperamentPart III (16:16 - 25:09)Conservatives and Liberals Both Now Show Concern on Transgender Revolution: Major Editorial Boards Agree on Significance of HHS Transgender Procedures ReportTreatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices by Department of Health and Human ServicesThe Cass Review by The National Archives (Hilary Cass)Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation by The White HouseThe U.S. Catches Up on Gender Medicine by The Wall Street Journal (The Editorial Board)Good questions about transgender care by The Washington Post (Editorial Board)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer at Slate covering courts and the law, previews the end of the Supreme Court term, plus remembers the late Justice Souter.

Justice David Souter has died.  Souter was one of the most private, low-profile justices ever to have served on the Supreme Court. He rarely gave interviews or speeches. Yet his tenure was anything but low profile. Deemed a “home run” nominee by Republicans, Souter defied partisan expectations on the bench and ultimately ceded his seat to a Democratic president.As we reflect on his legacy, we wanted to share this episode again.  Produced two years ago, this episode tells the story of how “No More Souters” became a rallying cry for Republicans and inspired a backlash that would change the Court forever.Voices in the episode include:• Ashley Lopez — NPR political correspondent• Anna Sale — host of Slate's Death, Sex & Money podcast • Tinsley Yarbrough — author and former political science professor at East Carolina University• Heather Gerken — Dean of Yale Law School and former Justice Souter clerk• Kermit Roosevelt III — professor at University of Pennsylvania School of Law and former Justice Souter clerk• Judge Peter Rubin — Associate Justice on Massachusetts Appeals Court and former Justice Souter clerk• Governor John H. Sununu — former governor of New Hampshire and President George H.W. Bush's Chief of StaffLearn more:• 1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey• 1992: Lee v. Weisman• 2000: Bush v. Gore• 2009: Citizens United v. FEC

Editors' Picks:Rich: Abigail Anthony's piece "Battle of the Shiloh Hendrix Fundraisers"Charlie: Dan McLaughlin's post “R.I.P. David Souter, the Last of His Kind”MBD: Jim's Morning Jolt “A New Pope, Made in America"Dominic: Noah Rothman “The Poseur”Light Items:Rich: BLTsCharlie: Rebuilding his grillMBD: Good fountain pensDominic: Apartment huntingSponsors:MoinkFastGrowingTreesThis podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte.

Justice David Souter, who spent nearly 20 years on the Supreme Court, has died. Souter was a critical figure in several key battles in the court over issues like abortion and the 2000 presidential election. William Brangham reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

President Donald Trump says he wants tariffs on Chinese goods to drop to 80%. Pope Leo XIV warns about “practical atheism.” Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter has died. US troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria have just months to resign. Plus, we'll tell you how a man who was killed in a shooting has given a statement in court.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Shannon Bream, chief legal correspondent and anchor of Fox News Sunday (check your local listings), joined The Guy Benson Show today to react to the historic selection of Pope Leo XIV, the first American pope, and what his selection means to the American catholic church. Bream also reflected on the life and legacy of former Supreme Court Justice David Souter and weighed in on CSPAN's push to televise the upcoming SCOTUS debate on birthright citizenship, and why the Court has remained silent on the request. Plus, she offered a preview of what's ahead on this week's edition of Fox News Sunday. Listen to the full interview below. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

FAA says air traffic controllers lost contact again for short time with flights going in and out of Newark Airport; President Donald Trump suggests a new tariff level for China as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and USTR Jamieson Greer are about to meet Chinese officials for trade talks; White House says the Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden was fired for pursuing DEI initiatives and "putting inappropriate books" in the library; Pope Leo XIV attends his first papal mass and gives part of the homily in English, calling his new job a 'blessing' and a 'cross'; First Lady Melania Trump speaks to military mothers ahead of Mother's Day; retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter has died at the age of 85. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Remembering Justice David Souter: A Legacy of Integrity and Law. Matt Robison and Paul Hodes discuss the life and significance of former Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who recently passed away at the age of 85. Souter was known for his quiet, intellectual persona and impact on American jurisprudence. Paul Hodes reflects on his personal experiences with Souter, highlighting his integrity, deep respect for the Constitution, and non-political approach to law. They explore Souter's unexpected reputation shift from a conservative to a liberal justice and his steadfast commitment to judicial precedent. They discuss Souter's belief in the rule of law and his dismay with the increasing politicization of the Supreme Court.00:00 Introduction: Remembering Justice David Souter00:42 Personal Reflections on David Souter03:04 A Life-Changing Interview05:22 Souter's Path to the Supreme Court08:54 The No More Souters Effect12:26 Souter's Disappointment with the Court16:33 Lessons from David Souter's Career

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports on the death of former Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

Justice David Souter, who spent nearly 20 years on the Supreme Court, has died. Souter was a critical figure in several key battles in the court over issues like abortion and the 2000 presidential election. William Brangham reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Justice David Souter, who spent nearly 20 years on the Supreme Court, has died. Souter was a critical figure in several key battles in the court over issues like abortion and the 2000 presidential election. William Brangham reports. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

A heroine goes back in time to a sticky-fingered situation.By Mark V Sharp, in 2 parts. Listen to the ► Podcast at Steamy Stories. "In her, shoot fast," Principal Chief Massasoit directed, using what words he knew so that he would not surprise or confuse his strange hosts, "I want in her, my first use to take.""First use?!" Miss Americana managed to whimper, in horror, in between the moans and yelps Squanto's big thrusting cock was forcing out of her. But she didn't have long to contemplate that."That is no problem at all, my lord!" Squanto replied. Relaxing himself he thrust his enormous hardened cock deep into Miss Americana and, with a groan of ecstasy, unleashed his potent Pawtuxet seed upon her defenseless womb."Oh, Great Justice!" Americana groaned, her eyes rolling up in her head, as she felt the pulsing of his great cock inside her, and knew it meant that his sperm was flooding into her.He pulled out and then stepped aside, his long cock dripping."I have lubricated her for you, my Sachem," he said, gesturing towards Americana's cunt, which, gaping slightly wider than before, was also already releasing a long tendril of his semen to dangle down between her thighs."Very good!" Massasoit said. He stepped forward and took up his own position behind her. Reaching out he stroked her toned bubble-ass, and shook his head. "This," he said, squeezing Americana's bulging silky cheeks, "is a very rich gift, indeed!"With that he pushed himself up against her leaking cunt, and also entered her."Oh, my God," Miss Americana whimpered, as she too discovered Squanto was not to be a unique case. Her entire body shivered, as the great chief's enormous copper-colored cock sank deep up inside her helplessly quivering cunt."That's a sin!" one of the Pilgrims sitting near her chided, and continued eagerly to watch.At the sight that their chief had accepted the gift and that peace had been restored, the waiting column of Wampanoag warriors let out a great whoop of glee. Then, hoisting their burdens, they marched into the Plymouth settlement. The Pilgrims greeted them warmly, food was handed out, the Pilgrims contributing their meager stocks of beer and bread to the natives' largesse. Soon the great feast was in progress, with Wampanoag and Pilgrim dining and chatting together, sampling the first dishes as the Pilgrim women and their daughters and servants worked to prepare the main courses.And through it all, bent over at one end of the great table at which the First Thanksgiving was being laid, Miss Americana continued to get nailed. Massasoit's great cock, in his eagerness, lasted only slightly longer than Squanto had. But there was plenty more where that had come from. He was followed by Samoset, the Sagamore of the Abanaki tribe, who kept closer tabs on the strange new colonists while the Sachem was busy with other matters. After Samoset, the Sachem's honor guard took their turns; and after they had finished, every warrior in the entire column came up one by one and also partook in Miss Americana's flesh.The Pilgrims, with their Godly morals, piously abstained, but this did not stop the Pilgrim men's faces from showing deep jealousy, that their native guests got to enjoy two great helpings of Thanks-giving bounty instead of just one.In between their own turns upon Miss Americana's body, Massasoit, Squanto, and Samoset took their own seats at the table of the Elders, and with it, a privileged view of the action up between Americana's muscular shivering thighs, as the pale-skinned beauty got nailed by one long uncut native cock after another after another. Between her spread thighs they could also see her enormous breasts hanging down low and swaying wildly over the table as she squealed and squirmed under her furious and unchecked invasions, as if her enormous milk-filled udders were blessing the heavily-laden table with their own generous bounty."Does this disturb you, Pilgrim?" one native who had also picked up some English asked. Sitting down after his own turn inside her he found an open seat before Americana's enormous swaying udders, smoking a post-coital pipe. "I thought your God does not approve of this sort of thing."The Pilgrim shook his head. "Nah," he said. "God makes everyone for a purpose. I think it's pretty clear what he made this one for."Then, leaning forward, the Pilgrim seized one of Americana's giant breasts and held his glass up under it. He squeezed, discharging a rich squirt of milk from the heroine's hanging fruits into his cup. He took the cup back, threw it back, and then licked some of the delicious white super-milk off his lips."Well, that and this!" he said, as he held the glass up.Seeing yet another way in which the mysterious woman could be used in a celebration of plenty, other Pilgrims soon came forward to also eagerly sample the fuck-quivering cow's produce. Americana, too busy squealing as she got nailed by one big native cock after another, could do nothing to resist as her big breasts were squeezed and squeezed until finally even those bottomless udders were drained dry.Eventually, the entire feast had been consumed and everyone was full and sated. Even Americana's belt-boosted strength eventually failed her, and after eighty or so consecutive fucks up against the table her knees finally buckled and she sank down, a quivering wreck. She had taken so much cum inside her that rivers seemed to flow down her thighs, and a huge puddle had formed, which her knees landed in with twin pearly splashes like comets entering an ocean of gooey white fluid.But though she was spent, she had not even begun to exhaust the collective vigor of the Wampanoag delegation. Flipping her over, the warriors positioned her on her back at the edge of the First Thanksgiving table, which, the feast having been largely consumed, was now otherwise covered in a great mass of empty used bowls, plates, and tableware. Then, having positioned her, they continued nailing her almost-limp body face-to-face upon the table, as, around them, the dessert course finally began to be served.The tight order of the early stages of the feast had by now broken down, and Elder and commoner, Indian and Pilgrim were now all mixing freely. Copious quantities of beer had also flowed along with the food, and everyone was now quite contentedly drunk, as while the Puritans were against many things, booze was not actually one of them."I say Reverend," the short Pilgrim commented to William Brewster, as they stood side by side near the entrance of a house and watched Americana's continuing show. "Everyone has eaten their full, except for the harem girl. It seems rather unsuited to a great Thanksgiving like this to leave one, even a harlot and serial adulteress such as she, unsated.""True," the Reverend said. "But the food has already been cleared. What is there for her to eat?""There is, one set of sausages that have not been touched," the tall Pilgrim said, finally dropping what they were angling for. "I know that putting them where the Indians are putting theirs is a sin, but what about her mouth. Does that, you know, count?""Hmm," the Reverend Brewster said. "Normally I would say yes. However, this is a special festive day, and she was clearly sent by Providence itself to perform exactly this, function, so perhaps, just once." As he saw the brightening expressions on the two Pilgrims' faces, he shook his head, and raised a chiding finger. "However, for the sake of the harmony of our settlement," he added, "it is not just God who must be consulted."As it happened, the Reverend's own wife was at that moment emerging from the house behind them, carrying two freshly-baked pies. The Reverend's sons, Truelove Brewster and Wrestling Brewster, trailed behind her, carrying another pie each."What say you, Mary?" the Reverend asked her, knowing full well her sharp ears would have overheard everything."Hmm," Mary Brewster said. She glanced at the other Pilgrim wives scattered about the festival, of which there were not many. Between the composition of the original complement of settlers and the terrible toll of deaths that had occurred over the previous winter, there were now a great deal more men than women in the colony. The few other wives looked at her, significantly, saying nothing but their expressions communicating much. Nodding with understanding, Mary turned back to her husband."I know that men build up a great deal of, pressure, if they are not given release," she said. "So, I would say it is fine if the unmarried or widowed men sate themselves while sating the whore. It might reduce, future problems. But the married men will be sated by their wives, or else!" She lifted up a finger and glared."Of course," Reverend Brewster said. He could not quite keep the disappointment out of his voice that he would not be among those allowed to partake.But before he could give general approval for the new plan, Mary caught one of the other wives widening her eyes to get her attention. The silent wife nodded a couple times, significantly, towards Americana's moaning lips, and then looked at Mary meaningfully. Mary nodded."There is one other condition," she added, hastily. "We good women of the colony have had to endure our husbands watching the whore get nailed, in silence. We have done so, for the future of our settlement. However, we must get compensated." She looked at her husband, her eyes boring into him. "So after the unmarried men have fed her their main course, we will feed her dessert, of the pies we have long had prepared between our legs, but rarely if ever had eaten. Is this clear?"The two junior Pilgrims' eyes widened, as if they had never imagined such a thing."Good heavens!" the tall one said, fingers going to his own lips."Is, is that permitted under Heaven's law, Reverend?" the short one asked."Uh," Reverend Brewster said. He wracked his memory of the Good Book, trying to think of a clear passage one way or the other. "To be honest," he said, "I'm not sure if the Good Lord considers that sex, or not,""Then there should be no problem, should there?" Mary asked testily."I guess not," he said, deciding to err on the side of marital harmony over strict doctrine for once. God's forgiveness, after all, was infinite. His wife's, on the other hand,Of course, before the natives 'peace offering' could be used in this manner, clearance first had to be gotten from Massasoit. But the Great Sachem, in a very relaxed state having thoroughly drained his own scrotum over the course of five separate sessions within Miss Americana, was in a magnanimous mood, and with a simple nod of his bronzed head and wave of his hand signaled his approval.So it was that as the pies got laid out, cut, and consumption began eagerly, one by one Pilgrim men began to ascend the table. As with the Indians, they went in strict order of rank, and, his own wife Rose being one of the casualties of the previous winter, this meant that Myles Standish was first in line."Open wide, and say your grace," he advised her, as having preemptively removed his pants, he came in for a landing on her moaning tongue.Miss Americana whimpered loudly as his cock entered her mouth. Pure instinct took over almost immediately. Wrapping her lips tight around his respectable but, compared to some of the monsters that had been in her cunt that day, modestly-sized cock, she began to suck it enthusiastically."Oh, yes!" Myles said. He lifted his eyes heavenward, as she slurped and slurped upon him. "T-truly, this wench was sent by the Lord!" he said, before erupting down her throat and giving her, her first load of cum to swallow.It would, of course, not be the last. As the lesser Pilgrims had pointed out, while everyone else had had their fill, at this First Thanksgiving Americana had had none. Now, they made up for that. One after another, unmarried Pilgrim men climbed up and, sometimes still eating pieces of pie as they did so, inserted their fresh sausages down between her lips. Americana moaned, and blushed, and sucked each one as vigorously and worshipfully as she could, as if they were truly her gifts from God. One warm protein shake after another poured down her throat, finally filling up her until-now-empty belly, and each and every one she gulped down with a vigor equal to the holiday. Then after each one finished she opened wide and, extending out her tongue, began putting preparatory licks upon the next incoming cock that inevitably replaced the last one in the never-ending cornucopia of cock she was being served.In the meantime, watching all this, and knowing that based on Mary Brewster's pronouncement they would not get their own full Thanksgiving repast any other way, one by one the married Pilgrim men snuck away from the party with their now equally enthused and eager wives, into the bushes or the backs of the more remote houses, to do what married couples do. Although, given the inspirations provided by Americana's marathon performance, they generally put a little more effort and creativity into it than they typically had. One by one, flush-faced and hand-in-hand they returned to the center of the festival, in a few cases with the seeds of another few thousand modern descendants quietly germinating under the Pilgrim women's' hastily re-lowered skirts.So it was that, when the Pilgrim men and the natives alike had finally sated themselves, well after the dessert course and into the after-meal drinking and general turkey-clobbered lethargy, Americana got her final surprise. With the coast finally clear, the Pilgrim wives climbed up one by one and got the 'compensation' that Mary Brewster had negotiated for them. As they lifted their skirts and lowered their unkempt bushes down towards the invading harlot's open gasping lips, Americana moaned to discover, one after another, that there was a pie of fresh cream waiting for her under each and every skirt, to accompany the gutted pumpkin and other pies lying spent all around her.But she didn't have much choice. Digging her tongue up between the wives' outer lips, she did her best to show them how it was done."Oh!" one Pilgrim woman after another sighed, heads rolling and shivering, as they discovered at the tip of the 'harem girl's' practiced tongue a pleasure their husbands had rarely, if ever, managed to provide them. Americana was not by nature a cunt-eater, but she had been put into that position often enough by triumphant villainesses to know her way around. She stroked the inner lips, teased the hood, and then finally went after the excited clit with vigor. And as she did so, streamers and tendrils of married Pilgrim cum poured out into her own mouth, which, like all the others before her, she periodically paused to gulp down hungrily before resuming her probing services.Finally, the last dish of all, the one between the legs of Mary Brewster herself, was served to her. As she stroked and stroked between Mary's labia, and felt the Reverend's hallowed semen wash down her tongue, Americana heard her ear-ring microphone crackle."Just so you know, Miss Americana," she heard Flag Girl's voice say, excitedly, "the semen you are currently eating will give rise to at least one Nobel Prize recipient, several Oscar-winning actresses and actors, one Supreme Court Justice, several Governors and Senators, a bunch of highly decorated Admirals in the U.S. Navy, and one President." The events she was getting to witness through the professor's Time Viewer were inspiring an interest in history the airheaded sidekick had never felt before, and she was eagerly scrolling through the lists of descendants of the various people her mentor was getting fucked by. "Isn't that cool?!" Americana heard her squeal.Americana whimpered. "Wonderful," she managed to moan into Mary Brewster's cunt, and with a lap of her tongue, sent more thrillingly historically-significant semen running down her throat.At last even the Pilgrim women had had their fill of serving up themselves, and receiving the novel pleasures of the harem girl's tongue in return. With Pilgrim and native alike now full and tired, they all started to decamp. The Pilgrims wandered back into their homes. The native leaders had had a few dwellings set aside for them, and the rest would make camp just outside the settlement.As the throng began to disperse, Governor Bradford, Squanto, and Massasoit stood side-by-side, surveying what was left of the Pilgrims' 'peace offering'.Americana lay sprawled upon the Thanksgiving table, as utterly and thoroughly consumed as any of the empty dishes all around her. She was not unconscious, but her blue eyes stared glassily up at the sky and didn't seem to see anything. She still had her belt, no one knowing to try to take it off of her, but despite that no muscle of her mighty curvy body seemed capable of movement, save for the slow rise and fall of her huge breasts as she breathed. Rivers of cum seemed to pour out of her cunt, spilling down in waterfalls between the planks of the table to form a vast growing lake underneath it."Shall we clean this mess up?" Governor Bradford asked, nodding towards Miss Americana.Without waiting for his interpreter, Massasoit shook his head. "No need," he said."It can wait until morning," Squanto assured him, smirking at the sight of the sprawled fucked-out white harlot. "Everyone is very tired and content.""Especially her!" Massasoit said, and tilting his head back let out a booming laugh."Should we post a guard on her then?" Governor Bradford asked.Massasoit again shook his head."The Sachem's warriors watch well all the approaches through the woods," Squanto advised. "No enemy tribe will enter here to take her. As for her, look at her. Do you think she can even walk at this point, let alone outrun the finest hunters of the Wampanoag people?""Good point," Governor Bradford admitted. "So, in that case, I have a small stash of brandy left. Shall we share some?"At this Massasoit tilted his head back and laughed vigorously. "Now this, is a good idea!" he said.With that the two natives and the Pilgrim turned and proceeded to the Governor's house, to continue their conversation.Americana was left alone, lying spent on the First Thanksgiving table. Soon all around her was quiet, save for the distant sound of a couple married Pilgrims getting in a second round. Panting, she stared at the stars, still in shock. Occasionally her gloved fingers twitched, down beside her wide and absurdly well-filled hips. Other than that, huge buns squished against the rough-hewn planks of the table, and huge tits rising and falling in the cool Massachusetts night, she could make no other move.At last, everyone nearby had either left or fallen asleep, and the coast was clear. Miss Americana's body began to glow. Her bikini, having been passed around and marveled at by various members of the party before being finally added as decorative elements to the top of the main centerpiece, glowed as well. Her chain, which had been secured to one leg of the table some time ago, did not.With a flash she was gone, leaving the Plymouth colony as mysteriously as she had entered it. The chain, disturbed by the wind of her passage, clanked to the ground. Pilgrims and natives alike would find it empty in the morning and assume that against all odds the 'harem girl' had managed to slip away in the night, and was probably therefore a witch after all. But, having already gotten very full use of her cunt, and since the blame for this could only rest primarily on his own sleepy sentries, Massasoit would not fault the Pilgrims for this and the treaty would not again be endangered. History, such as it was, for better or worse, was saved.Back in the current time, Flag Girl stood by, shivering nervously, as she watched the professor work the controls. A shining form slowly appeared upon the platform, a sprawled and shapely silhouette laid out spread-eagled atop it. Two smaller blobs appeared beside her, for her retrieved bra and panties.Then, with a last flash, the reverse time passage was complete. The machine hummed down, as Miss Americana and her discarded costume lay quivering upon the platform, once more in the flesh."Oh, thank the Goddess!" Flag Girl gasped, rushing forward in relief. Then, halfway to embracing her mistress, she suddenly gasped, skidded to a halt and froze. "Wha-what?" she gasped."Oh, yes," the Professor said. Looking down upon Americana from the control station beside the platform, he scratched his head sheepishly. "Yes, sometimes the time particles have, odd effects like this."Upon the platform Miss Americana groaned. Having recovered some of her strength and energy during the passage back, she lifted her head. She gasped, her curvy naked body rolling back and forth upon the platform, as rivers of semen continued to drip off it. Then, lifting one hand up to hold her head, she raised the other to comfortingly caress her aching belly, and then suddenly let out a loud yelp."Wha- what the?!" Miss Americana gasped.Lifting up her trembling gloved hand, she raised her head and stared down between her breasts in shock. There, rising up before her, which her fingers had unexpectedly encountered, her once-flat belly had already started to swell upwards considerably. She was six or seven months' pregnant, at least."Oh, Gah-Great Justice!" Miss Americana groaned, staring at her own enormous belly in disbelief."What, what happened?" Flag Girl squealed, hands over her lips."As I said," the professor said. Picking up a hand-held bio-scanner, he leaned over and began using it to examine Miss Americana's swollen belly. "The time-stream can have, odd effects sometimes. The exterior didn't age a day, if the still-runny and viable state of all this semen is any indication. The inside, well," He shrugged.Miss Americana shook her head, eyes glued to her impregnated body. As the Professor had stated, despite the advanced state of her pregnancy, streamers of seemingly fresh and gooey cum continued to flow out of her ravaged cunt lips, down onto the platform, spreading around her buxom buns."There's, there's no way my sonic device can deal with this," she whimpered. "Could you get me to Doctor Lingam fast? Maybe, maybe she could still fix this for me.""Maybe," the Professor admitted, still studying his scanner. "The time particles may make that more complicated than expected. But regardless of one's normal feelings on that practice, I think it might be considered a particularly sticky matter in this case, regardless.""What, what are you talking about, Professor?" the Queen of Justice gasped.He pointed at his scanner readout. "The other half of the genetic material in your womb matches no known human bloodline," he said. "Do you know what that means?"Miss Americana shook her head, glaring up at him furiously. "No of course not!" she said. "But since it's god-damn inside of me, just tell me!""The Native American known as Squanto," the Professor said, still looking over his readings with clinical detachment, "he was the one who had the first crack at your cunt, correct? And he was among the longest of those who fucked you, based on what we saw on the viewer, so if anyone's sperm reached your egg first, it was probably his. Correct?""Yes!" Americana said. She squirmed in particular, at the mention of the native interpreter's long cock, as it promptly dragged up deep memories of what it had felt like inside her. "Get to the point!" she said, naming an activity that none of the natives who had fucked her, least of all Squanto himself, had had any trouble at all doing within her."Well," he said. "In history as we previously understood it, the Pawtuxet tribe was entirely wiped out by disease save for one survivor. That would be Squanto. History tells us that he succumbed to European diseases himself shortly after the First Thanksgiving, and fathered no known children, thus making him the very last of his people."Turning it around, he showed her the readings on his bio-scanner."Until now," he said.Americana stared at the readings on the scanner in shock. In addition to all the genetic readings it also revealed to her that Squanto had gotten a jump on repopulating his tribe in another way as well. It wasn't one baby inside her, it was twins. Both boys. She turned and looked at her impregnated belly. Then she looked back at the scanner."Oh, oh shit," she whispered softly.Flag Girl suddenly started bouncing eagerly on her heels, having finally processed with her limited teen brainpower what the adults were talking about. "Oh, yay, Miss A!" she squealed. "You're going to be, like, the step-mother of an entire nation! Isn't that so cool?"Her face shivering in horror and wonder behind her star-spangled patriotic mask, Miss Americana shivered. "Oh, oh my fucking God!" she moaned.Overcome by the implications, she slumped back down onto the platform, her buxom naked body once more too overcome by what was happening to it to rise at all. Quivering against the floor, she shook and gasped in disbelief, as the seed of a vanished people suddenly re-birthed after a four-hundred-year absence continued to germinate eagerly within her patriotic womb.Back in the past, Governor Bradford had passed out in his chair. On a paper beside him, he had already taken some hasty notes about how the day's events could be carefully edited in the colonial records to preserve decorum. Massasoit and Tisquantum, still holding glasses of the governor's best brandy, had wandered to the outskirts of the colony. The escape of the busty peace offering had not yet been discovered. Sitting down on the side on a large rock by the shore they observed the light of the moon on the harbor in which the strangers had first arrived.'Does it ever disturb you,' Massasoit suddenly asked, in the Wampanoag tongue, 'to have to teach these people to live atop the graves of your tribe?''Sometimes' Tisquantum admitted. 'But I must do what is best for my people, and I trust you see that better than me.''I hope that I do,' Massasoit said. 'Being Sachem is not restful. I do sympathize though. The ghosts that dwell here cannot give you much rest either.'Looking out over the shining harbor Tisquantum thought back to playing upon this very rock as a child. He thought about the teenage girl he had courted, upon the hill above, who, as it turned out, he had never gotten to make his wife. He knew what remained of her was under a tree not far away, and visited it occasionally when no one else was watching.But, because it was so recent, he could also not help but remember the peace offering's cunt squeezing tight around his cock as he unleashed his seed into her.'It's alright,' he said. 'They just got a very tiny bit quieter for some reason.'Beside him, Massasoit let out a tiny bark of laughter. 'Yes, I'll bet!' he said.Then, raising their glasses of brandy, they chuckled as they each enjoyed a sip while looking out over the shining sea to the distant horizon.By Mark V Sharp for Literotica.Historical Characters:Massasoit, Sachem (essentially chief-over-other-chiefs) of the Wampanoag Confederacy, which dominated much of the land around the Plymouth settlement. Historically he signed a peace treaty with Governor John Carver in early 1621 that would last for nearly a century. He was also the one who sent Squanto to act as their interpreter and advisor. The land the colony was built on had been occupied by one of the tribes of his confederacy which, save for Squanto, had been entirely wiped out by disease. Without his help, including repeated deliveries of food, it is very unlikely the Plymouth colony would have survived.Tisquantum aka Squanto, last surviving member of the Pawtuxet tribe, whose vacant village the Pilgrims essentially settled on top of. The entire rest of the tribe was wiped out by a sudden outbreak of disease a few years before their arrival, most likely smallpox; Squanto escaped this fate by being kidnapped by an English explorer and sold into slavery in Spain, during which time he learned English. Eventually returning to his native land he was sent by Massasoit as the ambassador to his new white allies, and according to legend assisted the Pilgrims greatly in learning to survive in their new home. In actual history he would die of disease in 1622, a year after the so-called 'First Thanksgiving', leaving no known issue.William Brewster, though in reality the English Dissenters were a relatively egalitarian lot that rejected formal religious authorities, William Brewster is generally recognized as the chief spiritual leader and authority of the early colony. I just titled him 'Reverend' for simplicity's sake. Like many of the Pilgrims William Brewster has tens of thousands of known latter-day or modern-day descendants, but his list is particularly impressive including John Foster Dulles, Richard Gere, Katherine Hepburn, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Sarah Palin, Nelson Rockefeller, Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Commodore Matthew Perry (the dude who 'opened' Japan), Robert Noyce (the inventor of the integrated circuit), World War 2 Admiral William 'Bull' Halsey, and President Zachary Taylor.Mary Brewster, William Brewster's wife and mother of his children. I have no historical information that Mary Brewster had the slightest interest in receiving cunnilingus from other women; on the other hand I also don't have any hard information that she didn't.Truelove Brewster and Wrestling Brewster: no, really, these are the actual names William Brewster gave his sons. Also named his daughter 'Fear'.William Bradford, second Governor of the Plymouth Colony, after the first governor John Carver died of disease early in 1621. His journal, titled 'Of Plymouth Plantation,' is one of the primary historical sources on the early colony, including the First Thanksgiving. His descendants include Alec Baldwin, Clint Eastwood, Christopher Reeve, and Noah Webster, of 'Webster's Dictionary' fame. Unfortunately, William Bradford named his sons boring things like 'William Jr.' and 'Joseph' instead of the bat-shit awesome stuff William Brewster came up with, so I didn't give them any cameos.Myles Standish, hired by the Merchant Adventurers (non-religious monetary backers of the Mayflower expedition who were in it for potential trading profits) as a military advisor; Myles was not a Puritan, but was instead a career military man and veteran of warfare against the Spanish in Holland. However, he still was one of the signatories to the Mayflower Compact.

A heroine goes back in time to a sticky-fingered situation.By Mark V Sharp, in 2 parts. Listen to the ► Podcast at Steamy Stories. "In her, shoot fast," Principal Chief Massasoit directed, using what words he knew so that he would not surprise or confuse his strange hosts, "I want in her, my first use to take.""First use?!" Miss Americana managed to whimper, in horror, in between the moans and yelps Squanto's big thrusting cock was forcing out of her. But she didn't have long to contemplate that."That is no problem at all, my lord!" Squanto replied. Relaxing himself he thrust his enormous hardened cock deep into Miss Americana and, with a groan of ecstasy, unleashed his potent Pawtuxet seed upon her defenseless womb."Oh, Great Justice!" Americana groaned, her eyes rolling up in her head, as she felt the pulsing of his great cock inside her, and knew it meant that his sperm was flooding into her.He pulled out and then stepped aside, his long cock dripping."I have lubricated her for you, my Sachem," he said, gesturing towards Americana's cunt, which, gaping slightly wider than before, was also already releasing a long tendril of his semen to dangle down between her thighs."Very good!" Massasoit said. He stepped forward and took up his own position behind her. Reaching out he stroked her toned bubble-ass, and shook his head. "This," he said, squeezing Americana's bulging silky cheeks, "is a very rich gift, indeed!"With that he pushed himself up against her leaking cunt, and also entered her."Oh, my God," Miss Americana whimpered, as she too discovered Squanto was not to be a unique case. Her entire body shivered, as the great chief's enormous copper-colored cock sank deep up inside her helplessly quivering cunt."That's a sin!" one of the Pilgrims sitting near her chided, and continued eagerly to watch.At the sight that their chief had accepted the gift and that peace had been restored, the waiting column of Wampanoag warriors let out a great whoop of glee. Then, hoisting their burdens, they marched into the Plymouth settlement. The Pilgrims greeted them warmly, food was handed out, the Pilgrims contributing their meager stocks of beer and bread to the natives' largesse. Soon the great feast was in progress, with Wampanoag and Pilgrim dining and chatting together, sampling the first dishes as the Pilgrim women and their daughters and servants worked to prepare the main courses.And through it all, bent over at one end of the great table at which the First Thanksgiving was being laid, Miss Americana continued to get nailed. Massasoit's great cock, in his eagerness, lasted only slightly longer than Squanto had. But there was plenty more where that had come from. He was followed by Samoset, the Sagamore of the Abanaki tribe, who kept closer tabs on the strange new colonists while the Sachem was busy with other matters. After Samoset, the Sachem's honor guard took their turns; and after they had finished, every warrior in the entire column came up one by one and also partook in Miss Americana's flesh.The Pilgrims, with their Godly morals, piously abstained, but this did not stop the Pilgrim men's faces from showing deep jealousy, that their native guests got to enjoy two great helpings of Thanks-giving bounty instead of just one.In between their own turns upon Miss Americana's body, Massasoit, Squanto, and Samoset took their own seats at the table of the Elders, and with it, a privileged view of the action up between Americana's muscular shivering thighs, as the pale-skinned beauty got nailed by one long uncut native cock after another after another. Between her spread thighs they could also see her enormous breasts hanging down low and swaying wildly over the table as she squealed and squirmed under her furious and unchecked invasions, as if her enormous milk-filled udders were blessing the heavily-laden table with their own generous bounty."Does this disturb you, Pilgrim?" one native who had also picked up some English asked. Sitting down after his own turn inside her he found an open seat before Americana's enormous swaying udders, smoking a post-coital pipe. "I thought your God does not approve of this sort of thing."The Pilgrim shook his head. "Nah," he said. "God makes everyone for a purpose. I think it's pretty clear what he made this one for."Then, leaning forward, the Pilgrim seized one of Americana's giant breasts and held his glass up under it. He squeezed, discharging a rich squirt of milk from the heroine's hanging fruits into his cup. He took the cup back, threw it back, and then licked some of the delicious white super-milk off his lips."Well, that and this!" he said, as he held the glass up.Seeing yet another way in which the mysterious woman could be used in a celebration of plenty, other Pilgrims soon came forward to also eagerly sample the fuck-quivering cow's produce. Americana, too busy squealing as she got nailed by one big native cock after another, could do nothing to resist as her big breasts were squeezed and squeezed until finally even those bottomless udders were drained dry.Eventually, the entire feast had been consumed and everyone was full and sated. Even Americana's belt-boosted strength eventually failed her, and after eighty or so consecutive fucks up against the table her knees finally buckled and she sank down, a quivering wreck. She had taken so much cum inside her that rivers seemed to flow down her thighs, and a huge puddle had formed, which her knees landed in with twin pearly splashes like comets entering an ocean of gooey white fluid.But though she was spent, she had not even begun to exhaust the collective vigor of the Wampanoag delegation. Flipping her over, the warriors positioned her on her back at the edge of the First Thanksgiving table, which, the feast having been largely consumed, was now otherwise covered in a great mass of empty used bowls, plates, and tableware. Then, having positioned her, they continued nailing her almost-limp body face-to-face upon the table, as, around them, the dessert course finally began to be served.The tight order of the early stages of the feast had by now broken down, and Elder and commoner, Indian and Pilgrim were now all mixing freely. Copious quantities of beer had also flowed along with the food, and everyone was now quite contentedly drunk, as while the Puritans were against many things, booze was not actually one of them."I say Reverend," the short Pilgrim commented to William Brewster, as they stood side by side near the entrance of a house and watched Americana's continuing show. "Everyone has eaten their full, except for the harem girl. It seems rather unsuited to a great Thanksgiving like this to leave one, even a harlot and serial adulteress such as she, unsated.""True," the Reverend said. "But the food has already been cleared. What is there for her to eat?""There is, one set of sausages that have not been touched," the tall Pilgrim said, finally dropping what they were angling for. "I know that putting them where the Indians are putting theirs is a sin, but what about her mouth. Does that, you know, count?""Hmm," the Reverend Brewster said. "Normally I would say yes. However, this is a special festive day, and she was clearly sent by Providence itself to perform exactly this, function, so perhaps, just once." As he saw the brightening expressions on the two Pilgrims' faces, he shook his head, and raised a chiding finger. "However, for the sake of the harmony of our settlement," he added, "it is not just God who must be consulted."As it happened, the Reverend's own wife was at that moment emerging from the house behind them, carrying two freshly-baked pies. The Reverend's sons, Truelove Brewster and Wrestling Brewster, trailed behind her, carrying another pie each."What say you, Mary?" the Reverend asked her, knowing full well her sharp ears would have overheard everything."Hmm," Mary Brewster said. She glanced at the other Pilgrim wives scattered about the festival, of which there were not many. Between the composition of the original complement of settlers and the terrible toll of deaths that had occurred over the previous winter, there were now a great deal more men than women in the colony. The few other wives looked at her, significantly, saying nothing but their expressions communicating much. Nodding with understanding, Mary turned back to her husband."I know that men build up a great deal of, pressure, if they are not given release," she said. "So, I would say it is fine if the unmarried or widowed men sate themselves while sating the whore. It might reduce, future problems. But the married men will be sated by their wives, or else!" She lifted up a finger and glared."Of course," Reverend Brewster said. He could not quite keep the disappointment out of his voice that he would not be among those allowed to partake.But before he could give general approval for the new plan, Mary caught one of the other wives widening her eyes to get her attention. The silent wife nodded a couple times, significantly, towards Americana's moaning lips, and then looked at Mary meaningfully. Mary nodded."There is one other condition," she added, hastily. "We good women of the colony have had to endure our husbands watching the whore get nailed, in silence. We have done so, for the future of our settlement. However, we must get compensated." She looked at her husband, her eyes boring into him. "So after the unmarried men have fed her their main course, we will feed her dessert, of the pies we have long had prepared between our legs, but rarely if ever had eaten. Is this clear?"The two junior Pilgrims' eyes widened, as if they had never imagined such a thing."Good heavens!" the tall one said, fingers going to his own lips."Is, is that permitted under Heaven's law, Reverend?" the short one asked."Uh," Reverend Brewster said. He wracked his memory of the Good Book, trying to think of a clear passage one way or the other. "To be honest," he said, "I'm not sure if the Good Lord considers that sex, or not,""Then there should be no problem, should there?" Mary asked testily."I guess not," he said, deciding to err on the side of marital harmony over strict doctrine for once. God's forgiveness, after all, was infinite. His wife's, on the other hand,Of course, before the natives 'peace offering' could be used in this manner, clearance first had to be gotten from Massasoit. But the Great Sachem, in a very relaxed state having thoroughly drained his own scrotum over the course of five separate sessions within Miss Americana, was in a magnanimous mood, and with a simple nod of his bronzed head and wave of his hand signaled his approval.So it was that as the pies got laid out, cut, and consumption began eagerly, one by one Pilgrim men began to ascend the table. As with the Indians, they went in strict order of rank, and, his own wife Rose being one of the casualties of the previous winter, this meant that Myles Standish was first in line."Open wide, and say your grace," he advised her, as having preemptively removed his pants, he came in for a landing on her moaning tongue.Miss Americana whimpered loudly as his cock entered her mouth. Pure instinct took over almost immediately. Wrapping her lips tight around his respectable but, compared to some of the monsters that had been in her cunt that day, modestly-sized cock, she began to suck it enthusiastically."Oh, yes!" Myles said. He lifted his eyes heavenward, as she slurped and slurped upon him. "T-truly, this wench was sent by the Lord!" he said, before erupting down her throat and giving her, her first load of cum to swallow.It would, of course, not be the last. As the lesser Pilgrims had pointed out, while everyone else had had their fill, at this First Thanksgiving Americana had had none. Now, they made up for that. One after another, unmarried Pilgrim men climbed up and, sometimes still eating pieces of pie as they did so, inserted their fresh sausages down between her lips. Americana moaned, and blushed, and sucked each one as vigorously and worshipfully as she could, as if they were truly her gifts from God. One warm protein shake after another poured down her throat, finally filling up her until-now-empty belly, and each and every one she gulped down with a vigor equal to the holiday. Then after each one finished she opened wide and, extending out her tongue, began putting preparatory licks upon the next incoming cock that inevitably replaced the last one in the never-ending cornucopia of cock she was being served.In the meantime, watching all this, and knowing that based on Mary Brewster's pronouncement they would not get their own full Thanksgiving repast any other way, one by one the married Pilgrim men snuck away from the party with their now equally enthused and eager wives, into the bushes or the backs of the more remote houses, to do what married couples do. Although, given the inspirations provided by Americana's marathon performance, they generally put a little more effort and creativity into it than they typically had. One by one, flush-faced and hand-in-hand they returned to the center of the festival, in a few cases with the seeds of another few thousand modern descendants quietly germinating under the Pilgrim women's' hastily re-lowered skirts.So it was that, when the Pilgrim men and the natives alike had finally sated themselves, well after the dessert course and into the after-meal drinking and general turkey-clobbered lethargy, Americana got her final surprise. With the coast finally clear, the Pilgrim wives climbed up one by one and got the 'compensation' that Mary Brewster had negotiated for them. As they lifted their skirts and lowered their unkempt bushes down towards the invading harlot's open gasping lips, Americana moaned to discover, one after another, that there was a pie of fresh cream waiting for her under each and every skirt, to accompany the gutted pumpkin and other pies lying spent all around her.But she didn't have much choice. Digging her tongue up between the wives' outer lips, she did her best to show them how it was done."Oh!" one Pilgrim woman after another sighed, heads rolling and shivering, as they discovered at the tip of the 'harem girl's' practiced tongue a pleasure their husbands had rarely, if ever, managed to provide them. Americana was not by nature a cunt-eater, but she had been put into that position often enough by triumphant villainesses to know her way around. She stroked the inner lips, teased the hood, and then finally went after the excited clit with vigor. And as she did so, streamers and tendrils of married Pilgrim cum poured out into her own mouth, which, like all the others before her, she periodically paused to gulp down hungrily before resuming her probing services.Finally, the last dish of all, the one between the legs of Mary Brewster herself, was served to her. As she stroked and stroked between Mary's labia, and felt the Reverend's hallowed semen wash down her tongue, Americana heard her ear-ring microphone crackle."Just so you know, Miss Americana," she heard Flag Girl's voice say, excitedly, "the semen you are currently eating will give rise to at least one Nobel Prize recipient, several Oscar-winning actresses and actors, one Supreme Court Justice, several Governors and Senators, a bunch of highly decorated Admirals in the U.S. Navy, and one President." The events she was getting to witness through the professor's Time Viewer were inspiring an interest in history the airheaded sidekick had never felt before, and she was eagerly scrolling through the lists of descendants of the various people her mentor was getting fucked by. "Isn't that cool?!" Americana heard her squeal.Americana whimpered. "Wonderful," she managed to moan into Mary Brewster's cunt, and with a lap of her tongue, sent more thrillingly historically-significant semen running down her throat.At last even the Pilgrim women had had their fill of serving up themselves, and receiving the novel pleasures of the harem girl's tongue in return. With Pilgrim and native alike now full and tired, they all started to decamp. The Pilgrims wandered back into their homes. The native leaders had had a few dwellings set aside for them, and the rest would make camp just outside the settlement.As the throng began to disperse, Governor Bradford, Squanto, and Massasoit stood side-by-side, surveying what was left of the Pilgrims' 'peace offering'.Americana lay sprawled upon the Thanksgiving table, as utterly and thoroughly consumed as any of the empty dishes all around her. She was not unconscious, but her blue eyes stared glassily up at the sky and didn't seem to see anything. She still had her belt, no one knowing to try to take it off of her, but despite that no muscle of her mighty curvy body seemed capable of movement, save for the slow rise and fall of her huge breasts as she breathed. Rivers of cum seemed to pour out of her cunt, spilling down in waterfalls between the planks of the table to form a vast growing lake underneath it."Shall we clean this mess up?" Governor Bradford asked, nodding towards Miss Americana.Without waiting for his interpreter, Massasoit shook his head. "No need," he said."It can wait until morning," Squanto assured him, smirking at the sight of the sprawled fucked-out white harlot. "Everyone is very tired and content.""Especially her!" Massasoit said, and tilting his head back let out a booming laugh."Should we post a guard on her then?" Governor Bradford asked.Massasoit again shook his head."The Sachem's warriors watch well all the approaches through the woods," Squanto advised. "No enemy tribe will enter here to take her. As for her, look at her. Do you think she can even walk at this point, let alone outrun the finest hunters of the Wampanoag people?""Good point," Governor Bradford admitted. "So, in that case, I have a small stash of brandy left. Shall we share some?"At this Massasoit tilted his head back and laughed vigorously. "Now this, is a good idea!" he said.With that the two natives and the Pilgrim turned and proceeded to the Governor's house, to continue their conversation.Americana was left alone, lying spent on the First Thanksgiving table. Soon all around her was quiet, save for the distant sound of a couple married Pilgrims getting in a second round. Panting, she stared at the stars, still in shock. Occasionally her gloved fingers twitched, down beside her wide and absurdly well-filled hips. Other than that, huge buns squished against the rough-hewn planks of the table, and huge tits rising and falling in the cool Massachusetts night, she could make no other move.At last, everyone nearby had either left or fallen asleep, and the coast was clear. Miss Americana's body began to glow. Her bikini, having been passed around and marveled at by various members of the party before being finally added as decorative elements to the top of the main centerpiece, glowed as well. Her chain, which had been secured to one leg of the table some time ago, did not.With a flash she was gone, leaving the Plymouth colony as mysteriously as she had entered it. The chain, disturbed by the wind of her passage, clanked to the ground. Pilgrims and natives alike would find it empty in the morning and assume that against all odds the 'harem girl' had managed to slip away in the night, and was probably therefore a witch after all. But, having already gotten very full use of her cunt, and since the blame for this could only rest primarily on his own sleepy sentries, Massasoit would not fault the Pilgrims for this and the treaty would not again be endangered. History, such as it was, for better or worse, was saved.Back in the current time, Flag Girl stood by, shivering nervously, as she watched the professor work the controls. A shining form slowly appeared upon the platform, a sprawled and shapely silhouette laid out spread-eagled atop it. Two smaller blobs appeared beside her, for her retrieved bra and panties.Then, with a last flash, the reverse time passage was complete. The machine hummed down, as Miss Americana and her discarded costume lay quivering upon the platform, once more in the flesh."Oh, thank the Goddess!" Flag Girl gasped, rushing forward in relief. Then, halfway to embracing her mistress, she suddenly gasped, skidded to a halt and froze. "Wha-what?" she gasped."Oh, yes," the Professor said. Looking down upon Americana from the control station beside the platform, he scratched his head sheepishly. "Yes, sometimes the time particles have, odd effects like this."Upon the platform Miss Americana groaned. Having recovered some of her strength and energy during the passage back, she lifted her head. She gasped, her curvy naked body rolling back and forth upon the platform, as rivers of semen continued to drip off it. Then, lifting one hand up to hold her head, she raised the other to comfortingly caress her aching belly, and then suddenly let out a loud yelp."Wha- what the?!" Miss Americana gasped.Lifting up her trembling gloved hand, she raised her head and stared down between her breasts in shock. There, rising up before her, which her fingers had unexpectedly encountered, her once-flat belly had already started to swell upwards considerably. She was six or seven months' pregnant, at least."Oh, Gah-Great Justice!" Miss Americana groaned, staring at her own enormous belly in disbelief."What, what happened?" Flag Girl squealed, hands over her lips."As I said," the professor said. Picking up a hand-held bio-scanner, he leaned over and began using it to examine Miss Americana's swollen belly. "The time-stream can have, odd effects sometimes. The exterior didn't age a day, if the still-runny and viable state of all this semen is any indication. The inside, well," He shrugged.Miss Americana shook her head, eyes glued to her impregnated body. As the Professor had stated, despite the advanced state of her pregnancy, streamers of seemingly fresh and gooey cum continued to flow out of her ravaged cunt lips, down onto the platform, spreading around her buxom buns."There's, there's no way my sonic device can deal with this," she whimpered. "Could you get me to Doctor Lingam fast? Maybe, maybe she could still fix this for me.""Maybe," the Professor admitted, still studying his scanner. "The time particles may make that more complicated than expected. But regardless of one's normal feelings on that practice, I think it might be considered a particularly sticky matter in this case, regardless.""What, what are you talking about, Professor?" the Queen of Justice gasped.He pointed at his scanner readout. "The other half of the genetic material in your womb matches no known human bloodline," he said. "Do you know what that means?"Miss Americana shook her head, glaring up at him furiously. "No of course not!" she said. "But since it's god-damn inside of me, just tell me!""The Native American known as Squanto," the Professor said, still looking over his readings with clinical detachment, "he was the one who had the first crack at your cunt, correct? And he was among the longest of those who fucked you, based on what we saw on the viewer, so if anyone's sperm reached your egg first, it was probably his. Correct?""Yes!" Americana said. She squirmed in particular, at the mention of the native interpreter's long cock, as it promptly dragged up deep memories of what it had felt like inside her. "Get to the point!" she said, naming an activity that none of the natives who had fucked her, least of all Squanto himself, had had any trouble at all doing within her."Well," he said. "In history as we previously understood it, the Pawtuxet tribe was entirely wiped out by disease save for one survivor. That would be Squanto. History tells us that he succumbed to European diseases himself shortly after the First Thanksgiving, and fathered no known children, thus making him the very last of his people."Turning it around, he showed her the readings on his bio-scanner."Until now," he said.Americana stared at the readings on the scanner in shock. In addition to all the genetic readings it also revealed to her that Squanto had gotten a jump on repopulating his tribe in another way as well. It wasn't one baby inside her, it was twins. Both boys. She turned and looked at her impregnated belly. Then she looked back at the scanner."Oh, oh shit," she whispered softly.Flag Girl suddenly started bouncing eagerly on her heels, having finally processed with her limited teen brainpower what the adults were talking about. "Oh, yay, Miss A!" she squealed. "You're going to be, like, the step-mother of an entire nation! Isn't that so cool?"Her face shivering in horror and wonder behind her star-spangled patriotic mask, Miss Americana shivered. "Oh, oh my fucking God!" she moaned.Overcome by the implications, she slumped back down onto the platform, her buxom naked body once more too overcome by what was happening to it to rise at all. Quivering against the floor, she shook and gasped in disbelief, as the seed of a vanished people suddenly re-birthed after a four-hundred-year absence continued to germinate eagerly within her patriotic womb.Back in the past, Governor Bradford had passed out in his chair. On a paper beside him, he had already taken some hasty notes about how the day's events could be carefully edited in the colonial records to preserve decorum. Massasoit and Tisquantum, still holding glasses of the governor's best brandy, had wandered to the outskirts of the colony. The escape of the busty peace offering had not yet been discovered. Sitting down on the side on a large rock by the shore they observed the light of the moon on the harbor in which the strangers had first arrived.'Does it ever disturb you,' Massasoit suddenly asked, in the Wampanoag tongue, 'to have to teach these people to live atop the graves of your tribe?''Sometimes' Tisquantum admitted. 'But I must do what is best for my people, and I trust you see that better than me.''I hope that I do,' Massasoit said. 'Being Sachem is not restful. I do sympathize though. The ghosts that dwell here cannot give you much rest either.'Looking out over the shining harbor Tisquantum thought back to playing upon this very rock as a child. He thought about the teenage girl he had courted, upon the hill above, who, as it turned out, he had never gotten to make his wife. He knew what remained of her was under a tree not far away, and visited it occasionally when no one else was watching.But, because it was so recent, he could also not help but remember the peace offering's cunt squeezing tight around his cock as he unleashed his seed into her.'It's alright,' he said. 'They just got a very tiny bit quieter for some reason.'Beside him, Massasoit let out a tiny bark of laughter. 'Yes, I'll bet!' he said.Then, raising their glasses of brandy, they chuckled as they each enjoyed a sip while looking out over the shining sea to the distant horizon.By Mark V Sharp for Literotica.Historical Characters:Massasoit, Sachem (essentially chief-over-other-chiefs) of the Wampanoag Confederacy, which dominated much of the land around the Plymouth settlement. Historically he signed a peace treaty with Governor John Carver in early 1621 that would last for nearly a century. He was also the one who sent Squanto to act as their interpreter and advisor. The land the colony was built on had been occupied by one of the tribes of his confederacy which, save for Squanto, had been entirely wiped out by disease. Without his help, including repeated deliveries of food, it is very unlikely the Plymouth colony would have survived.Tisquantum aka Squanto, last surviving member of the Pawtuxet tribe, whose vacant village the Pilgrims essentially settled on top of. The entire rest of the tribe was wiped out by a sudden outbreak of disease a few years before their arrival, most likely smallpox; Squanto escaped this fate by being kidnapped by an English explorer and sold into slavery in Spain, during which time he learned English. Eventually returning to his native land he was sent by Massasoit as the ambassador to his new white allies, and according to legend assisted the Pilgrims greatly in learning to survive in their new home. In actual history he would die of disease in 1622, a year after the so-called 'First Thanksgiving', leaving no known issue.William Brewster, though in reality the English Dissenters were a relatively egalitarian lot that rejected formal religious authorities, William Brewster is generally recognized as the chief spiritual leader and authority of the early colony. I just titled him 'Reverend' for simplicity's sake. Like many of the Pilgrims William Brewster has tens of thousands of known latter-day or modern-day descendants, but his list is particularly impressive including John Foster Dulles, Richard Gere, Katherine Hepburn, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Sarah Palin, Nelson Rockefeller, Supreme Court Justice David Souter, Commodore Matthew Perry (the dude who 'opened' Japan), Robert Noyce (the inventor of the integrated circuit), World War 2 Admiral William 'Bull' Halsey, and President Zachary Taylor.Mary Brewster, William Brewster's wife and mother of his children. I have no historical information that Mary Brewster had the slightest interest in receiving cunnilingus from other women; on the other hand I also don't have any hard information that she didn't.Truelove Brewster and Wrestling Brewster: no, really, these are the actual names William Brewster gave his sons. Also named his daughter 'Fear'.William Bradford, second Governor of the Plymouth Colony, after the first governor John Carver died of disease early in 1621. His journal, titled 'Of Plymouth Plantation,' is one of the primary historical sources on the early colony, including the First Thanksgiving. His descendants include Alec Baldwin, Clint Eastwood, Christopher Reeve, and Noah Webster, of 'Webster's Dictionary' fame. Unfortunately, William Bradford named his sons boring things like 'William Jr.' and 'Joseph' instead of the bat-shit awesome stuff William Brewster came up with, so I didn't give them any cameos.Myles Standish, hired by the Merchant Adventurers (non-religious monetary backers of the Mayflower expedition who were in it for potential trading profits) as a military advisor; Myles was not a Puritan, but was instead a career military man and veteran of warfare against the Spanish in Holland. However, he still was one of the signatories to the Mayflower Compact.

As the Medicare enrollment period gets underway again, we welcome Dr. Adam Gaffney to remind us the ways all those heavily advertised Medicare Advantage programs are ripping you off. Then we receive another house call from Dr. Marty Makary, author of Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health about the effect of medical groupthink on all kinds of accepted treatments from peanut allergies to opioid addiction. Finally, founder of Media Matters, David Brock stops by to discuss his latest book, Stench: The Making of the Thomas Court and the Unmaking of America.Dr. Adam Gaffney is a physician, writer, public health researcher, and advocate. Dr. Gaffney practices at the Cambridge Health Alliance and is an Assistant Professor in Medicine at Harvard Medical School. A member of the Cambridge Health Justice Lab, his research focuses on healthcare financing, reform, and equity, and disparities in lung health. He writes about the policy, politics, and history of health care, and is the author of To Heal Humankind: The Right to Health in History.The reality is we don't need Medigap. We could plug those holes with public coverage. There's no reason to have a role for private insurers to cover a slice of our healthcare when all seniors need the same thing—which is comprehensive universal care.  There's no need for these private stopgap measures, when what we need is a public system of universal care.Dr. Adam GaffneyI do think there's growing interest among physicians in change. Their bosses are increasingly these for-profit companies whose mission is not really medicine. Their mission is money. And what we need to do is to rethink our healthcare system, so it serves communities, is owned by communities, and it returns us to the underlying reason why we went into this profession—which is to help patients, and not to pad the pockets of shareholders.Dr. Adam GaffneyDr. Marty Makary is a Johns Hopkins professor and member of the National Academy of Medicine. He is the author of two New York Times best-selling books, Unaccountable and The Price We Pay. Dr. Makary has written for the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, and he has published more than 250 scientific research articles. He served in leadership at the W.H.O. and has been a visiting professor at 25 medical schools. His latest book is Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health.For most of human history, doctors were respected, but maybe like you would respect your hairdresser, or maybe a clergy member in the community. And we didn't have many tools as doctors. We had a lancet, we had a saw to do amputations, we had a couple of drugs that didn't work or were counterproductive like digoxin. And then what happened in 1922 is Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin. And by the post-World War II era in the 1940s and '50s, we saw the mass production of antibiotics. That ushered in the white coat era of medicine. Doctors began to wear a white coat. They now had the power to prescribe a magical pill that could cure disease, make childbirth safe, enable surgeons to do procedures safer. And this ushered in this new unquestioned authority. And what happened was, physicians as a class took advantage of this unquestioned authority.Dr. Marty MakaryDavid Brock is a Democratic activist and founder of Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog group. Following the 2010 elections, Mr. Brock founded the Super PAC American Bridge, which works to elect Democrats. He is a New York Times best-selling author, and his books include the memoir Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative, Killing the Messenger: The Right Wing Plot to Hijack Your Government, and his latest book is Stench: The Making of the Thomas Court and the Unmaking of America.The Federalist Society was originally founded by three rightwing law students. And it was pitched as a debating society. So I don't think in the original incarnation, they had a master plan. But soon enough, they realized that membership in the Federalist Society could confer on people a certain imprimatur for appointments—and that's appointments not only to the federal judiciary, but all through the executive branch.David BrockThe scheme to overturn Roe has been going on for all these decades. There were setbacks, of course, because there were times when Republican appointees ended up being independent—Sandra Day O 'Connor, for example, David Souter, for example—and the right was defeated in their effort to overturn Roe. So it took a while and it took a lot of steadfast, patient spending of money on their crusade.David Brock[This is] a time when the Biden regime is supporting the destruction of the ancient land of Lebanon— whom he's called in prior years an ally. He's letting Netanyahu destroy Lebanon with the same tactics that Netanyahu applied to the genocide in Gaza.Ralph NaderIn Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantisNews 10/23/241. Last week, Israel announced they had killed longtime Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. As NBC put it, the footage of his death released by Israel “showed Sinwar not hiding in a tunnel surrounded by hostages — as Israeli officials often claimed he was — but aboveground and hurling a stick at a drone with his last ounce of strength.” American political leaders, such as Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders, are seeking to use Sinwar's death to argue that Israel has accomplished its mission and should therefore conclude its genocidal campaign in Gaza. Israeli leaders however have made it abundantly clear that they have no intention of pulling out of Gaza, with Benny Gantz – chairman of Israel's National Unity Party and among Prime Minister Netanyahu's chief political rivals – stating that the Israeli military “will continue to operate in the Gaza Strip for years to come,” per Al Jazeera.2. According to POLITICO, during an August 29th meeting in Washington Lise Grande, the top U.S. official working on the humanitarian situation in Gaza told the leaders of more than a dozen aid organizations that “the U.S. would not consider withholding weapons from Israel for blocking food and medicine from entering [Gaza].” It is illegal to block the delivery of humanitarian assistance under both American and international human rights law. As the paper notes, Grande's “candid assessment…raises questions about the seriousness of recent Biden administration threats to [withhold arms].” One attendee told POLITICO “[Grande] was saying that the rules don't apply to Israel.”3. Meanwhile, Israel continues its war on the United Nations mission in Lebanon. On October 20th, UNIFIL released a statement saying “Earlier today, an IDF bulldozer deliberately demolished an observation tower and perimeter fence of a UN position in Marwahin…The IDF has repeatedly demanded that UNIFIL vacate its positions along the Blue Line and has deliberately damaged UN positions. Despite the pressure being exerted on the mission and our troop-contributing countries…We will continue to undertake our mandated tasks.” UNIFIL added “Yet again, we note that breaching a UN position and damaging UN assets is a flagrant violation of international law and Security Council resolution 1701.”4. In a frankly dystopian story from the United Kingdom, British counterterrorism police “raided the home and seized several electronic devices belonging to The Electronic Intifada's associate editor Asa Winstanley,” despite the fact that Winstanley has not been charged with any offense. Electronic Intifada reports the raid was conducted under sections 1 and 2 of the 2006 “Terrorism Act,” which deal with the “encouragement of terrorism.” Human Rights Watch has previously urged the British government to repeal the repressive provisions of the 2006 act noting that “the definition of the encouragement of terrorism offense is overly broad, raising serious concerns about undue infringement on free speech.” Electronic Intifada further notes “In August, Britain's Crown Prosecution Service issued a warning to the British public to ‘think before you post' and threatening that it would prosecute anyone it deemed guilty of what it calls ‘online violence.'” Winstanley is the author of Weaponising Anti-Semitism: How the Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn and has been interviewed by the Capitol Hill Citizen.5. According to the Libertarian magazine Reason, Bob Woodward's new book War includes a passage about a “shockingly blunt conversation,” between President Biden and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham regarding “Biden's attempts to negotiate a ‘megadeal' between the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.” Per Reason “Graham reportedly said that only Biden could secure a U.S.-Saudi defense treaty, because it would ‘take a Democratic president to convince Democrats to vote to go to war for Saudi Arabia'” Biden's response? “Let's do it.” Furthermore, reports indicate this security pact only fell apart after October 7th, with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman seeing a prominent deal with Israel at that time as a major political liability. Reason cites an article from the Atlantic in January wherein Salman reportedly told Secretary of State Antony Blinken “Do I care personally about the Palestinian issue? I don't, but my people do…Half my advisers say that the deal is not worth the risk. I could end up getting killed because of this deal.”6. In more international news, the Cuban energy grid collapsed on Friday, under strain from Hurricane Oscar. The complete grid collapse left the entire country of 10 million without electricity, per NPR. Reuters reports that over the weekend, the grid failed three more times as authorities sought to restore power. Brasil de Fato, or BdF, a Brazilian socialist news service, reports China, Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Russia and Barbados are offering support to Cuba amid the total blackout. BdF further reports “The Alba Movimientos platform, which brings together more than 400 organizations from 25 countries, issued a statement...[saying] ‘No one can attribute this virtual collapse of the Cuban electricity system to a specific measure by the US government – that would be too simplistic…this is'“the result of a long strategy of planned destruction of the material and spiritual living conditions of the Cuban population…with the financial resources denied to Cuba due to the blockade policy, 18 days of accumulated damages equal the annual cost of maintaining the country's electricity system.” According to the UN, the U.S. embargo cost Cuba $13 million US dollars per day between 2022 and 2023 alone.7. A new scandal has rocked American Higher Education. Inside Higher Ed reports “Last week a lawsuit accused 40 colleges and universities, as well as the nonprofit College Board, of participating in a price-fixing conspiracy to jack up tuition rates” specifically, for children of divorced parents. The scheme itself had to do with consideration of the non-custodial parent's income, but the larger issue at stake here is the fact that the universities entered into a “cartel” in violation of antitrust laws. As this piece notes this is the “second major price-fixing antitrust lawsuit filed against highly selective universities since 2022, when 17 institutions…were accused of illegally colluding to set common financial aid formulas. So far, 10 of those institutions have settled for a combined $248 million.”8. Boeing has offered their striking machinists a new deal, which they hope will end their crippling strike. ABC reports “The new offer delivers a 35% raise over the four-year duration of the contract,” which is short of the 40% raise demanded by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers but considerably better than the aerospace titan's previous offer of 25%. ABC continues “The proposal also hikes Boeing's contribution to a 401(k) plan, but it declines to fulfill workers' call for a reinstatement of the company's defined pension.” As this piece notes, the machinists overwhelmingly rejected Boeing's previous offer last month; this week they will vote on the new proposal. Whatever the details of the final contract, this episode clearly demonstrates the power of a union, even going up against one of the most powerful corporations in America.9. A stunning CNN investigation reveals the extent of predatory fundraising by the major parties off of elderly people suffering from dementia or other forms of cognitive decline in their old age. According to “More than 1,000 reports filed with government agencies and consumer advocacy groups… deceptive political fundraisers have victimized hundreds of elderly Americans…into giving away millions of dollars.” These heartbreaking stories concern “Donors…often in their 80s and 90s…[including] retired public workers, house cleaners and veterans, widows living alone, nursing home residents…[with] money…from pensions, Social Security payments and retirement savings accounts meant to last decades.” To cite just one just one shocking example: “[an] 82-year-old woman, who wore pajamas with holes in them because she didn't want to spend money on new ones, didn't realize she had given Republicans more than $350,000 while living in a 1,000 square-foot Baltimore condo since 2020.”10. Finally, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib has sent a letter to Rodney McMullen, Chairman and CEO of Kroger, decrying the company's “decision to roll out surge pricing using facial recognition technology.” Specifically, Tlaib cites concerns about price manipulation based on external factors like supply as well as discrimination based on race, gender, and other criteria determined through facial recognition. Tlaib ends this letter with six key questions, including “Will Kroger use…facial recognition to display targeted advertisements…?…What safeguards will be in pace?…[and] Are there plans to sell data collected in the store?” among others. Grocery prices continue to be a source of everyday economic hardship for working Americans and corporations are increasingly interested in surge pricing for essential goods. There is some comfort in knowing at least one member of Congress is concerned about this dangerous combination.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Has there been a worse week for the left in the last 25 years? First "Squadster" Jamal Bowman loses his House seat, then the Supreme Court delivers blow-after-blow to the foundations of the administrative state, and then Biden didn't show up for a debate. Oh, wait—he did show up, though you had to wonder whether they really intended a Weekend at Bernie's sequel.John Yoo hosts this week's episode, and manages both to coax some cheerfulness out of Lucretia, but also skillfully avoiding the important Supreme Court opinion involving The Statute That Cannot Be Named on This Podcast. We break down the highlights and lowlights of both the debate and the Supreme Court opinions, with Lucretia offering some praise for Chief Justice Roberts for a change, while just about giving up hope for Justice Barrett, who seems to be angling to become the next David Souter on the Court. To be continued with a special July 4 episode next week.

David Souter is one of the most private, low-profile Justices ever to have served on the Supreme Court. He rarely gave interviews or speeches. Yet his tenure was anything but low profile. Deemed a “home run” nominee by the George H. W. Bush Administration, Souter refused to answer questions during his confirmation hearing about pressing issues—most critically, about abortion rights and Roe v. Wade, which Republicans were seeking to overturn. He was confirmed overwhelmingly. Then, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and other decisions, he defied the expectations of the Party that had nominated him. Why? This episode, produced by WNYC Studios' “More Perfect” and hosted by Julia Longoria, explains how “No More Souters” became a rallying cry for Republicans and how Souter's tenure on the bench inspired a backlash that would change the Court forever. You can listen to more episodes of “More Perfect” here.

Toniann Leavitt joined us in studio to discuss the upcoming Fall semester for the Osher Lifelong Living Institute at the University of New Hampshire. Toniann is OLLI's Program Manager. Also with us were two of OLLI's long-time presenters, Rabbi Robin Nafshi of Temple Beth Jacob in Concord and Dave Hess who served as NH's Assistant Attorney General under Warren Rudman and David Souter and was a NH State Representative for 25 years. The OLLI registration starts Wednesday, 8/2, at 9 AM at www.unh.edu/OLLI

On this day in history, July 20, 1990, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan retired. William Joseph Brennan Jr., an influential American jurist, served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1956 until 1990, making him the seventh-longest serving justice in history. To add some color to that run, he was appointed by President Eisenhower and his successor was appointed by George H. W. Bush. Brennan, originally from Newark, New Jersey, pursued economics at the University of Pennsylvania before studying at Harvard Law School, later practicing law privately in New Jersey and serving in the U.S. Army during WWII. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in 1951 and was placed on the Supreme Court by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 via a recess appointment.On the Supreme Court, Brennan was recognized for his progressive stance, opposing the death penalty, advocating for abortion and gay rights, and dissenting in over 1,400 cases where the court declined to review a death sentence. Brennan penned several landmark case opinions such as Baker v. Carr, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Craig v. Boren, and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, significantly influencing American jurisprudence. His ability to negotiate votes and shape varied opinions led to his recognition as one of the court's most influential members, with Justice Antonin Scalia naming him "probably the most influential Justice of the [20th] century." He retired in 1990 and was succeeded by David Souter. Justice Brennan passed away in 1997 Senator Tom Cotton, a prominent critic of progressive initiatives, has cautioned law firms and their clients regarding their use of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. Following the US Supreme Court's decision to nullify affirmative action in higher education institutions, the Arkansas Republican issued warnings to 51 national and global law firms, stating that their continued endorsement of DEI programs could potentially breach federal law. Cotton, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, predicted that both Congress and private entities would use their respective powers to examine the surge in race-based employment practices.He also communicated to the firms, including Allen & Overy, Greenberg Traurig, and Hogan Lovells, that they should be prepared to answer to Congress if they persist with race-based programs. The notice extended beyond law firms, with Republican Attorneys General from several states also cautioning Fortune 100 CEOs against racially motivated hiring and recruitment practices. Cotton has previously issued similar warnings, including a communication to Target's CEO, advising against the company's DEI practices. Alongside other Republicans, Cotton had issued a warning in November to the same law firms concerning the risks associated with their Environmental, Social, and Governance practices.Big Law's Diversity Efforts May Be Illegal, GOP Senator WarnsDoorDash Inc., a major player in the gig economy, is testing a new hourly wage option for its drivers, which could potentially reshape their classification under federal labor laws. Currently, most gig economy companies, including DoorDash, categorize their workers as independent contractors, who do not receive the same protections as employees under federal employment laws. This new pay model might suggest DoorDash exercises a significant amount of control over its drivers, a key factor in determining whether a worker is an employee or a contractor.DoorDash maintains that the new payment structure gives drivers more choices and control over their pay, signifying an independent contractor status. This comes amidst ongoing debates about worker classification, with claims that companies exploit the independent contractor model to avoid the obligations associated with hiring employees.It's worth noting that both the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor (DOL) suggest hourly pay may indicate an employment relationship. This discussion arises as the Biden administration seeks to define the independent contractor status under federal wage laws. However, it's too early to predict how the DOL or courts will interpret DoorDash's move and what influence it might have on other gig economy companies.DoorDash Tests Gig-Economy Model With New Hourly Wage OptionGun rights advocates are challenging Massachusetts' firearm regulations, sparking scrutiny from the US Supreme Court. These challenges follow last year's Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifles & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which altered how firearms laws are evaluated and left many questions unresolved. Four active suits are currently testing the interpretation of this decision.In one case, Granata v. Healey, gun owners and manufacturers are challenging the state's restrictions on malfunctioning handguns. Another case seeks to have Massachusetts' ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines declared unconstitutional.At the state level, one lawsuit argues that the law allowing a licensing authority to revoke a person's gun license if it deems them unsuitable is too vague under Bruen. Another case aims to apply Bruen's test to the state's law prohibiting people from carrying switchblades.The Supreme Court has agreed to hear United States v. Rahimi, a case concerning the constitutionality of a federal law barring persons subject to a domestic-violence restraining order from possessing guns. This case could provide more guidance on the implementation of Bruen. However, attorneys note that it will take years for courts to refine Bruen's boundaries, and many details, especially concerning weapons that did not exist in the 18th century, remain unresolved.Gun Rights Battles Brew in Massachusetts in Supreme Court's WakeA U.S. judge has denied former President Donald Trump's attempt to move his criminal case from New York state court to federal court. The case is related to hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. Trump was indicted in April in Manhattan on 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to Daniels, facilitated by his then-lawyer Michael Cohen.Trump, currently a front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, argued that the case should be in federal court as it relates to his 2016 presidency and involves federal election law. However, Judge Alvin Hellerstein refuted these claims, stating that the case involves a personal matter unrelated to Trump's official acts as president.The judge also dismissed the argument that Trump has immunity and that the state charges were pre-empted because they were intended to defraud the voting public during a federal election. Trump's trial is set for March 2024 in the New York State Supreme Court, and it is yet to be confirmed whether he will appeal. Trump continues to argue that the case is politically motivated.Trump loses bid to move New York hush-money case to federal court | ReutersTesla has been instructed to turn over some of CEO Elon Musk's emails to JPMorgan Chase as part of an ongoing lawsuit. The case originates from a dispute over a bond contract that came about after Musk's 2018 tweet about potentially taking Tesla private. JPMorgan claims that Musk communicated about this plan through his SpaceX account. The bank has accused Tesla of breaching a 2014 contract related to stock warrants that it sold to JPMorgan, which it alleges increased in value due to Musk's tweet.The bank has sued Tesla for $162.2 million, arguing it had to reprice the warrants after Musk's tweet, and the subsequent increase in Tesla's stock price necessitated payments that Tesla has not made. Tesla counter-sued JPMorgan, accusing the bank of seeking a "windfall" when it repriced the warrants.Musk, who bought Twitter for $44 billion in 2021, agreed as part of a 2018 deal with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to get preapproval for certain tweets from a Tesla lawyer. His attempt to terminate this agreement is currently being considered by a federal appeals court.Tesla to hand over Musk's emails to JPMorgan in lawsuit over 2018 tweet | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

David Souter is one the most private, low-profile justices ever to have served on the Supreme Court. He rarely gives interviews or speeches. Yet his tenure was anything but low profile. Deemed a “home run” nominee by Republicans, Souter defied partisan expectations on the bench and ultimately ceded his seat to a Democratic president. In this episode, the story of how “No More Souters” became a rallying cry for Republicans and inspired a backlash that would change the Court forever. Voices in the episode include: • Ashley Lopez — NPR political correspondent • Anna Sale — host of WNYC Studios' Death Sex & Money podcast • Tinsley Yarbrough — author and former political science professor at East Carolina University • Heather Gerken — Dean of Yale Law School and former Justice Souter clerk • Kermit Roosevelt III — professor at University of Pennsylvania School of Law and former Justice Souter clerk • Judge Peter Rubin — Associate Justice on Massachusetts Appeals Court and former Justice Souter clerk • Governor John H. Sununu — former governor of New Hampshire and President George H.W. Bush's Chief of Staff Learn more: • 1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey • 1992: Lee v. Weisman • 2000: Bush v. Gore • 2009: Citizens United v. FEC   Shadow dockets, term limits, amicus briefs — what puzzles you about the Supreme Court? What stories are you curious about? We want to answer your questions in our next season. Click here to leave us a voice memo. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram, Threads and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

Last week, the Supreme Court handed down, as they usually do as the term comes to an end, a flurry of highly anticipated major decisions. Two of them made a lot of news: one effectively ended affirmative action in American higher education, and another ruled that a Colorado web designer could refuse to create a wedding website for a same-sex couple.  The mainstream media's prevailing sentiment over the last week has been that these are the sorry consequences of a conservative majority court. This court overturned Roe v. Wade last year in a major setback to women's rights; now they've undone decades of precedent that helped historically disadvantaged students have a chance at the American dream, and they've weakened gay rights.  When President Joe Biden was asked at a press conference last week whether or not this is a “rogue court,” Biden basically said yes. He muttered, “This isn't a normal court.”   Is that true? Is this court “not normal”? Or do these decisions actually reflect a legitimate reading of the Constitution?  To help separate signal from noise and fact from hyperbole, today we have three legal experts from different sides of the political aisle to hash it out. Harry Litman is an attorney who has clerked for two Supreme Court justices, Thurgood Marshall and Anthony Kennedy. He is also a host of the podcast Talking Feds. Jeannie Suk Gersen is a professor at Harvard Law School and writer for The New Yorker. She clerked for David Souter. And Sarah Isgur is a columnist for The Dispatch and an ABC News contributor. She clerked for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and served as the Justice Department spokeswoman during the Trump administration. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In recent years, the attorney Jonathan Mitchell has become a crucial figure in the anti-abortion movement. Advising a Texas state senator, Mitchell developed Texas's S.B. 8 legislation, which allows for civil lawsuits against individuals who have helped facilitate an abortion—acts like driving a patient to an appointment. The law was crafted to evade review by the Supreme Court in the period before Dobbs ended the precedent of Roe v. Wade. Opponents of the law have called it state-sponsored vigilantism. Mitchell is now representing a man seeking millions of dollars in civil damages from friends of his ex-wife—who helped her access abortion medication—in a wrongful death lawsuit. And yet, despite his conservative politics, Mitchell has something in common with some legal thinkers on the left: a critique of the Supreme Court and its extraordinary power. As an opponent of the belief in judicial supremacy, Mitchell asks, “Why should it be the Supreme Court and not Congress?” to have the last word on what the Constitution means. “Why should it be the Supreme Court and not a state legislature that might have a different view?” Mitchell rarely gives interviews, but he agreed to speak with The New Yorker's contributor, Jeannie Suk Gersen, a professor at Harvard Law School who clerked for the former Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

We don't achieve any results because all our side cares about is our standing relative to Democrats. This is why as long as we have a Republican, we never strive for more. I tie this into judicial nominees as well. We had the opportunity to get three justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas, but none of them are, and Barrett and Kavanaugh have been particularly problematic on many critical civilization issues. I discuss how Kavanaugh just screwed us on a major redistricting case that can flip the House to the Democrats. In general, aside from abortion, Kavanaugh and Barrett have way too much respect for bad precedent. Gorsuch's opinion on transgender “rights” is going to haunt us for years to come. This is all because we had the insanely low expectation of “at least he didn't pick David Souter.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher.

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nadine Strossen joins Tim to talk about how to fight “hate speech” or harmful speech without censorship. She's a best-selling author and a Professor of Constitutional Law at New York Law School. She's also the first woman national President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  In this episode, she talks about private company censorship, the challenges, some solutions and all of it as addressed in her book “Hate: Why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship. This episode was first released April 12, 2021. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Encore_-_Nadine_Strossen_on_Free_Speech.mp3 Free speech isn't just an American issue, and it's not just a First Amendment issue. Though it is important to note that the right of freedom of expression is the cornerstone to the First Amendment for a reason. The founders believed that certain rights come from God. Even if you don't believe in God, and that is your right as protected by the First Amendment, the founders would tell you that your rights are natural rights, not man-made rights. They are innate desires and drives for every human being on earth and that it's not for man to deny them to others. The right to express yourself without punishment is one of the most important rights they cited. The right to gather in groups peacefully together without penalty. The right to worship your God without coercion or punishment. The right of a free press to report news and information without government control. History is ripe with examples of cases where these rights were used to spread hateful thoughts and ideas. At the same time, our country's short history is also full of cases where courts decided that the price for our First Amendment freedoms is tolerance for the spread of ideas that some may see as harmful, hateful or irresponsible. The principle is this. We must be willing to tolerate speech we don't like in exchange for the right to deliver speech that others may not like. In recent years, there has been a movement to try to control, prevent or stop the spread of speech and information some may feel are harmful. Their solution is to stifle the speech, de-platform the messenger. Or even de-platform the platform. Remove any opportunity for others to communicate if that communication does not meet accepted narratives. In other words, censorship. This has been the focus of Nadine Strossen's professional life. And with a resume that includes serving as the first woman national President of the ACLU, she has solid credentials on the issue of free speech and the battle against censorship, she has found allies from conservatives to progressives as well, making this an increasingly nonpartisan issue. Links Nadine Strossen Bio, New York Law School Hate: Why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship, by Nadine Strossen (Barnes & Noble) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, by Soshana Zuboff (Barnes & Noble) Communications Decency Act of 1996 (in full, including Section 230), Columbia University PDF About this Episode's Guest Nadine Strossen Nadine Strossen has written, taught, and advocated extensively in the areas of constitutional law and civil liberties, including through frequent media interviews. From 1991 to 2008, she served as President of the American Civil Liberties Union, the first woman to head the nation's largest and oldest civil liberties organization. Professor Strossen is currently a member of the ACLU's National Advisory Council, as well as the Advisory Boards of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Heterodox Academy, and the National Coalition Against Censorship. When she stepped down as ACLU President in 2008, three Supreme Court Justices participated in her farewell and tribute luncheon: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and David Souter. Her 2018 book, HATE: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech,

Kermit Roosevelt III, professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice David Souter, author of The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America's Story (University of Chicago Press, 2022) – and a great-great-grandson to Pres. Teddy Roosevelt – offers a reinterpretation of U.S. history that places Lincoln's Gettysburg Address as our true founding document.

Professor Kent Greenfield stops by Supreme Myths to talk about the Court and religion, the Court and corporations, free speech, and the great Justice Souter.

BlackFacts.com presents the black fact of the day for June 25.Sonia Sotomayor was born.She is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States,  the first woman of color, first Hispanic, and first Latina member of the Court.Sotomayor was raised in a housing project in the Bronx.After the death of her father, her mother worked long hours as a nurse to support the family.She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University before attending Yale Law School on a scholarship. In 1979, Sotomayor was awarded a Juris Doctor. She was admitted to the New York Bar the following year.When President Bill Clinton nominated Sotomayor to be a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1997, Republican senators delayed her appointment for more than a year because of their concerns that the position might lead to a Supreme Court nomination. In May 2009 Pres. Barack Obama nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court in order to fill the vacancy left by departing justice David Souter.Sotomayor's confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee in July 2009 went smoothly, and the following month she was confirmed (68–31) by the Senate.During her tenure on the Supreme Court, Sotomayor has been identified with concern for the rights of defendants, calls for reform of the criminal justice system, and making impassioned dissents on issues of race, gender and ethnic identity.Learn black history, teach black history at blackfacts.com

CIB is back after a long weekend of tapping the Rockies to yap about Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer's retirement, the NFL's Rooney rule, the latest COVID news, and how much it sucks to be online, and how much MORE Facebook and Zuckerberg want it suck in the near future. Listen! Has something we said, or failed to say, made you FEEL something? You can tell us all about it on Facebook or Twitter, leave a comment on the show's page on our website, or you can send us an email here. Enjoy!Show RundownOpen — A few minutes on airports, airplanes, and babies13:45 — Justice Souter, err, Stevens, err…Breyer! Yes! That one! Justice Breyer to retire30:55 — Brian Flores, the Rooney Rule, and nepotism in the NFL42:36 — COVID update, can the Democrats do good news, and not-quite truthering the COVID numbers50:20 — We are all having the Joe Rogan Experience, and it sucks!1:13:35 — Mark Zuckerberg thinks the future is in the metaverse, but he can't make us go there…can he?1:34:05 — Wrap up: MOONFALL, the Tinder Swindler, and 1917.

In this episode, Kathryn speaks with journalist and author Joshua Prager about why he chose Roe as the subject of his most recent book, and what is so compelling about Norma McCorvey's story. They also discuss what we know now about the deal Justice Souter struck to save Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Josh also explains why he thinks it is important to excavate the history of the cases that established and codified reproductive rights when those freedoms are very much in peril at the Supreme Court. Episode Resources The Family Roe https://www.joshuaprager.com/  Episode Highlights Why is Reproductive Freedom an important topic to dig into? - 1:09 How does he bring people in to get behind the caption? - 4:13 Learnings from Parker and how that mythology really starts to take hold within the right? - 8:19 Justice Souter and the Pro-Choice Movement. - 12:29 How it developed. - 15:02 One of the things that's fascinating for Joshua and how his eyes got opened as he wrote his book. - 18:22 Takeaway: What are the things that can be used as a North Star to move forward? - 20:41 It's easier to become laissez-faire to something if it's legal. - 26:31 Subscribe, Share, and Review To get the next episode subscribe with your favorite podcast player. Subscribe with Apple Podcasts Follow on Spotify Leave a review on Apple Podcasts

Featuring guest speaker, Mai Ratakonda of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In Season 2, Episode 2 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, which involved the Supreme Court's consideration of the constitutionality of The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (“the Act”). In 2003, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Act into law. Dr. LeRoy Carhart and other physicians, who performed late term abortions, sued to stop the Act from going into effect. A federal district court agreed and ruled the Act unconstitutional. The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which upheld the lower court's ruling. The question ultimately presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Act was an unconstitutional violation of the personal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment because the Act lacked an exception for partial birth abortion necessary to protect mothers. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority ruled that there was no undue burden because there are other types of abortions that one could get in their second trimester. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissent, joined by Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer. The dissent criticized the majority for failing to follow precedent in this case. Specifically, Justice Ginsburg noted “Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices.” Mai Ratakonda of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, joined by Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano and Patricia Kim discuss Justice Ginsburg's impact on this case. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg's writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see  www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Michelle Bufano Patricia Kim

https://news.gsu.edu/podcast/episode-35-professor-julian-mortenson/ () Professor Julian Mortenson joins Supreme Myths to discuss Justice Souter, the delegation doctrine, court reform, and more.

Professor Julian Mortenson joins Supreme Myths to discuss Justice Souter, the delegation doctrine, court reform, and more.

Nadine Strossen joins Tim to talk about how to fight “hate speech” or harmful speech without censorship. She's a best-selling author and a Professor of Constitutional Law at New York Law School. She's also the first woman national President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  In this episode, she talks about private company censorship, the challenges, some solutions and all of it as addressed in her book “Hate: Why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Fight_Hate_with_Free_Speech_auphonic.mp3 Free speech isn't just an American issue, and it's not just a First Amendment issue. Though it is important to note that the right of freedom of expression is the cornerstone to the First Amendment for a reason. The founders believed that certain rights come from God. Even if you don't believe in God, and that is your right as protected by the First Amendment, the founders would tell you that your rights are natural rights, not man-made rights. They are innate desires and drives for every human being on earth and that it's not for man to deny them to others. The right to express yourself without punishment is one of the most important rights they cited. The right to gather in groups peacefully together without penalty. The right to worship your God without coercion or punishment. The right of a free press to report news and information without government control. History is ripe with examples of cases where these rights were used to spread hateful thoughts and ideas. At the same time, our country's short history is also full of cases where courts decided that the price for our First Amendment freedoms is tolerance for the spread of ideas that some may see as harmful, hateful or irresponsible. The principle is this. We must be willing to tolerate speech we don't like in exchange for the right to deliver speech that others may not like. In recent years, there has been a movement to try to control, prevent or stop the spread of speech and information some may feel are harmful. Their solution is to stifle the speech, de-platform the messenger. Or even de-platform the platform. Remove any opportunity for others to communicate if that communication does not meet accepted narratives. In other words, censorship. This has been the focus of Nadine Strossen's professional life. And with a resume that includes serving as the first woman national President of the ACLU, she has solid credentials on the issue of free speech and the battle against censorship, she has found allies from conservatives to progressives as well, making this an increasingly nonpartisan issue. Links Nadine Strossen Bio, New York Law School Hate: Why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship, by Nadine Strossen (Barnes & Noble) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, by Soshana Zuboff (Barnes & Noble) Communications Decency Act of 1996 (in full, including Section 230), Columbia University PDF About this Episode's Guest Nadine Strossen Nadine Strossen has written, taught, and advocated extensively in the areas of constitutional law and civil liberties, including through frequent media interviews. From 1991 to 2008, she served as President of the American Civil Liberties Union, the first woman to head the nation's largest and oldest civil liberties organization. Professor Strossen is currently a member of the ACLU's National Advisory Council, as well as the Advisory Boards of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Heterodox Academy, and the National Coalition Against Censorship. When she stepped down as ACLU President in 2008, three Supreme Court Justices participated in her farewell and tribute luncheon: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and David Souter. Her 2018 book, HATE: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship, has been widely praised by ideologically diverse...

Nadine Strossen joins Tim to talk about how to fight “hate speech” or harmful speech without censorship. She’s a best-selling author and a Professor of Constitutional Law at New York Law School. She’s also the first woman national President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  In this episode, she talks about private company censorship, the challenges, some solutions and all of it as addressed in her book “Hate: Why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Fight_Hate_with_Free_Speech_auphonic.mp3 Free speech isn’t just an American issue, and it’s not just a First Amendment issue. Though it is important to note that the right of freedom of expression is the cornerstone to the First Amendment for a reason. The founders believed that certain rights come from God. Even if you don’t believe in God, and that is your right as protected by the First Amendment, the founders would tell you that your rights are natural rights, not man-made rights. They are innate desires and drives for every human being on earth and that it’s not for man to deny them to others. The right to express yourself without punishment is one of the most important rights they cited. The right to gather in groups peacefully together without penalty. The right to worship your God without coercion or punishment. The right of a free press to report news and information without government control. History is ripe with examples of cases where these rights were used to spread hateful thoughts and ideas. At the same time, our country’s short history is also full of cases where courts decided that the price for our First Amendment freedoms is tolerance for the spread of ideas that some may see as harmful, hateful or irresponsible. The principle is this. We must be willing to tolerate speech we don’t like in exchange for the right to deliver speech that others may not like. In recent years, there has been a movement to try to control, prevent or stop the spread of speech and information some may feel are harmful. Their solution is to stifle the speech, de-platform the messenger. Or even de-platform the platform. Remove any opportunity for others to communicate if that communication does not meet accepted narratives. In other words, censorship. This has been the focus of Nadine Strossen’s professional life. And with a resume that includes serving as the first woman national President of the ACLU, she has solid credentials on the issue of free speech and the battle against censorship, she has found allies from conservatives to progressives as well, making this an increasingly nonpartisan issue. Links Nadine Strossen Bio, New York Law School Hate: Why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship, by Nadine Strossen (Barnes & Noble) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, by Soshana Zuboff (Barnes & Noble) Communications Decency Act of 1996 (in full, including Section 230), Columbia University PDF About this Episode’s Guest Nadine Strossen Nadine Strossen has written, taught, and advocated extensively in the areas of constitutional law and civil liberties, including through frequent media interviews. From 1991 to 2008, she served as President of the American Civil Liberties Union, the first woman to head the nation’s largest and oldest civil liberties organization. Professor Strossen is currently a member of the ACLU’s National Advisory Council, as well as the Advisory Boards of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Heterodox Academy, and the National Coalition Against Censorship. When she stepped down as ACLU President in 2008, three Supreme Court Justices participated in her farewell and tribute luncheon: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and David Souter. Her 2018 book, HATE: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship, has been widely praised by ideologically diverse...

Nostalgic for a nation of laws, not of men? In eager anticipation of a Justice Department dedicated to something other than xenophobia and the promotion of imperial rule, we turn to intellectual property guru Jaime Michael Wolf, an attorney who sorts out claims and counter-claims involving publishers, artists and their estates, designers and even chefs. We cover social media's damnation of memory issued to the soon-to-be-evicted tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, how copyright is adapting to everything from the Internet to tattoos, a clear definition of Fair Use, Justice Souter's opinion in support of 2 Live Crew, which yielded the legal principle of “transformativeness”, a new small claims court in the Copyright Office, solutions to the proliferation of cybersquatting, phony Apple stores in China, and much more. After listening, you'll be ready for the first post-pandemic cocktail party to show off newly acquired knowledge about IP and the arts.

Nostalgic for a nation of laws, not of men? In eager anticipation of a Justice Department dedicated to something other than xenophobia and the promotion of imperial rule, we turn to intellectual property guru Jaime Michael Wolf, an attorney who sorts out claims and counter-claims involving publishers, artists and their estates, designers and even chefs. We cover social media’s damnation of memory issued to the soon-to-be-evicted tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, how copyright is adapting to everything from the Internet to tattoos, a clear definition of Fair Use, Justice Souter’s opinion in support of 2 Live Crew, which yielded the legal principle of “transformativeness”, a new small claims court in the Copyright Office, solutions to the proliferation of cybersquatting, phony Apple stores in China, and much more. After listening, you’ll be ready for the first post-pandemic cocktail party to show off newly acquired knowledge about IP and the arts.

With the nation in the throes of a lame-duck congressional session and slow-motion presidential transition, the judiciary is the only branch of the federal government that is working smoothly at the moment, even in the wake of seismic change in the U.S. Supreme Court’s personnel. And, as it happens, employee benefits policy hangs in the balance. On November 10, the high court heard oral arguments in California v. Texas, the latest lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. A number of other important benefits cases will also come before the court in the coming months. In this episode, special guest host James Klein, American Benefits Council president, speaks with Meaghan VerGow, a partner and litigator with the law firm of O’Melveny and Myers and a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice David Souter and for D.C. Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland. VerGow and Klein discuss the fate of the ACA, the nuances of ERISA litigation and where the “highest court in the land” really is. Please rate and subscribe the American Benefits Podcast on iTunes. For more information on the Council or the American Benefits Podcast, please email us at info@abcstaff.org.

Since the days of John Marshall, justices have worn black robes to downplay their individuality. But in recent decades, Supreme Court justices have found themselves increasingly surrounded by a "celebrity culture" befitting politicians—or reality TV stars. If the exemplar of this trend was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (or "RBG" to her fans), then its antithesis was Justice David Souter, who retired quietly from the Court in 2009. Marquette University Law Professor https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3651361 (Chad Oldfather) describes this in a new paper: “https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3651361 (The Inconspicuous DHS: The Supreme Court, Celebrity Culture, and Justice David H. Souter).” He discussed it with https://twitter.com/adamjwhitedc?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor (Adam) in today's episode—an episode first scheduled before the sad news of Justice Ginsburg's passing.

As the U.S. Senate moved closer to confirming Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, we're reminded that not all nominees have such an easy ride. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated appeals court judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. But after a contentious hearing, the Senate rejected Bork's nomination. And now, in fact, his name has become virtually synonymous with ignominious defeat, as in "he got borked." One of the several times I interviewed him was in 1991, not long after David Souter was confirmed to a seat on the high court. As you'll hear in this interview.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Judges Kayatta, Selya and retired Justice Souter) ruled on September 15 that the National Labor Relations Board was correct as a matter of law in holding that private sector unions may never charge dissenting nonmembers for their lobbying activity. The private sector union in this case, United Nurses & Allied Professionals, lobbied the Vermont and Rhode Island legislatures on a variety of bills, and argued that no Supreme Court case squarely held lobbying to be nonchargeable to nonmembers in the private sector, and that the NLRB erred in its analysis of the Supreme Court’s line of compulsory dues cases when it held lobbying per se nonchargeable. To reach its decision, the First Circuit analyzed the line of Supreme Court cases that stretches from IAM v. Street (1961) to CWA v. Beck (1988) to Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association (1991) to Harris v. Quinn (2014) and ultimately to the decision in Janus v. AFSCME (2018). The First Circuit agreed with the NLRB and the dissenting employee, nurse Jeanette Geary, that Supreme Court law taken as a whole compelled a finding that private sector unions are banned from ever charging nonmembers for lobbying activities. Jeannette Geary’s lawyer, Glenn Taubman of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, argued the case and will present an overview of the case and discuss its ramifications for unions and employees in the private sector.Mr. Taubman will also discuss the significant procedural twists and turns this case took before reaching the First Circuit, as it was the subject of two mandamus petitions in the D.C. Circuit, one challenging the power of President Obama’s NLRB recess appointees to act in the years before Noel Canning was decided, and a second one challenging the NLRB’s inordinate delay in deciding the case once a valid complement of Board members was confirmed by the Senate. Featuring: -- Glenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, The National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Judges Kayatta, Selya and retired Justice Souter) ruled on September 15 that the National Labor Relations Board was correct as a matter of law in holding that private sector unions may never charge dissenting nonmembers for their lobbying activity. The private sector union in this case, United Nurses & Allied Professionals, lobbied the Vermont and Rhode Island legislatures on a variety of bills, and argued that no Supreme Court case squarely held lobbying to be nonchargeable to nonmembers in the private sector, and that the NLRB erred in its analysis of the Supreme Court’s line of compulsory dues cases when it held lobbying per se nonchargeable. To reach its decision, the First Circuit analyzed the line of Supreme Court cases that stretches from IAM v. Street (1961) to CWA v. Beck (1988) to Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association (1991) to Harris v. Quinn (2014) and ultimately to the decision in Janus v. AFSCME (2018). The First Circuit agreed with the NLRB and the dissenting employee, nurse Jeanette Geary, that Supreme Court law taken as a whole compelled a finding that private sector unions are banned from ever charging nonmembers for lobbying activities. Jeannette Geary’s lawyer, Glenn Taubman of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, argued the case and will present an overview of the case and discuss its ramifications for unions and employees in the private sector.Mr. Taubman will also discuss the significant procedural twists and turns this case took before reaching the First Circuit, as it was the subject of two mandamus petitions in the D.C. Circuit, one challenging the power of President Obama’s NLRB recess appointees to act in the years before Noel Canning was decided, and a second one challenging the NLRB’s inordinate delay in deciding the case once a valid complement of Board members was confirmed by the Senate. Featuring: Glenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, The National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Thirty years ago David Souter, nominated by a Republican president, won confirmation by a vote of 90-9. Amy Coney Barret will be lucky to get 53 votes. What has happened in the past 30 years, and over the course of the history of our Republic, that has changed in regard to SOTUS.

My thoughts on the Ruth Bader Ginsburg drama. There are 3 currently living retired Supreme Court justices: Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. Each of these still-living former justices chose to retire, rather than to remain on the bench until death. RGB was perhaps the most partisan justice ever to serve on the Court, so understandably, she made the purposeful choice to stay on as long as possible. Therefore, it was her choice to politicize the vacancy which would be created by her death. In fact, her last words, as relayed by her granddaughter, were purportedly, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”   First of all, presidents are elected – not installed – and secondly, the seat belongs to the American people. It never belonged to her. It's not her seat; it's not the Democrats' seat; it's not the left's seat; it's not the right's seat; it's the people's seat. There can be no doubt that the Constitution provides the that the President is tasked with nominating someone new to fill the vacancy, subject to the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. The only issue is the timing.The Constitution doesn't necessarily provide, or require, that federal judgeships last until “death,” per se, but just that appointments are for “life.” What does the Constitution say about this?   Read more: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2020/09/21/should-rgb-be-replaced-before-the-november-election/  

Nadine Strossen, the John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita at New York Law School and the immediate past President of the American Civil Liberties Union (1991-2008), is a leading expert and frequent speaker/media commentator on constitutional law and civil liberties, who has testified before Congress on multiple occasions. She serves on the advisory boards of the ACLU, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Heterodox Academy, and National Coalition Against Censorship. The National Law Journal has named Strossen one of America’s "100 Most Influential Lawyers," and several other publications have named her one of the country’s most influential women. Her many honorary degrees and awards include the American Bar Association’s prestigious Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award (2017). At NYLS’s 2019 commencement, Strossen made history by receiving both the award for outstanding teaching and the award for the best book. When Strossen stepped down as ACLU President, three (ideologically diverse) Supreme Court Justices participated in her farewell/tribute luncheon: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and David Souter. Strossen’s 2018 book HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship has earned praise from ideologically diverse experts, including progressive Harvard University Professor Cornel West and conservative Princeton University Professor Robert George. HATE was selected by Washington University as its 2019 “Common Read” for all incoming students. Her earlier book, Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights, was named a New York Times "notable book" of 1995. Strossen has made thousands of public presentations before diverse audiences around the world, including on more than 500 different campuses and in many foreign countries, and she has appeared on virtually every national TV news program. Her hundreds of publications have appeared in many scholarly and general interest publications. Strossen graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard College and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. Before becoming a law professor, she practiced law in Minneapolis (her hometown) and New York City. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Learn more and connect with Nadine here: https://www.nyls.edu/faculty/nadine-strossen/ Nadine’s Book: Hate: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship here https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/hate-nadine-strossen/1127152077 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/catalyst-talks/message

Much as David Souter drifted hard-left on President George H.W. Bush, John Roberts appears to be heading in that direction as President George W. Bush's appointee. The Chief Justice joined the four more liberal Supreme Court members (Bader-Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer) in handing the Trump Administration a procedural defeat on the Obama-Era DACA program Thursday. Senator Ted Cruz took Roberts, and the entire Supreme Court, to task for a ruling he considers brazen and ridiculous.

Death by Suicide    Why is "committed suicide" wrong or hurtful?   Biblical examples from internet:   Abimelech, mortally wounded by a millstone, ordered his armor-bearer to dispatch him to avoid the suggestion he had been slain by the woman who had thrown the stone (Judg 9:52-54); the prophet Ahithophel hanged himself after betraying David (2Sam 17:23); Zimri burned down his house around himself after military defeat (1Kgs 16:18); and the more familiar stories of Saul and his armor-bearer (1Sam 1:1-6; 1Chr 10:1-6), Samson, (Judg 16:28), and, of course, Jesus’ disciple Judas—although it is only in Matthew’s Gospel where he kills himself (Matt 27:3-5; compare with Acts 1:18). There is nothing in any of these stories to suggest that the biblical narrators disapprove of the characters’ suicides.   Fascinating line from the Supreme Court--which although not for tomorrow's conversation, but which I have seen walked very carefully very recently--provides:   "The prohibition on assisted suicide is not arbitrary under the due process standard," but concurring Justice Souter "also support[s] the distinction between assistance to suicide, which is banned, and practices such as termination of artificial life support and death-hastening pain medication, which are permitted." Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, 809–10 (1997).

In der neunundzwanzigsten Folge von “Gedämpfte Huscheln” diskutieren Jan und Alex die dritte Folge der fünften Staffel, Homer an der Uni. Dieses mal geht es um David Souter, den tödlichsten Witz der Welt und lateinische Motto-Wettbewerbe. Blog/Download/iTunes: www.huscheln.de SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/gedaempfte-huscheln

In this episode, Professor Ann Lipton, the Michael M. Fleishman Associate Professor of Business Law and Entrepreneurship at Tulane Law School explains how to evaluate whether a financial product is a security and therefore subject to securities law regulations. Some key takeaways are...1. Stocks and Bonds are securities.2. Securities are subject to disclosure regulations unless they fall into legislated exceptions.3. To avoid securities regulation requirements companies and individuals try to disguise products as something other than securities.4. Courts have developed several tests to evaluate whether a product is a security; the most prominent of which is the Howey test.About our guest...Ann M. Lipton is an experienced securities and corporate litigator who has handled class actions involving some of the world’s largest companies. She joined the Tulane Law faculty in 2015 after two years as a visiting assistant professor at Duke University School of Law. In 2016, she was named as Tulane's first Michael M. Fleishman Associate Professor in Business Law and Entrepreneurship. Professor Lipton clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter and 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edward Becker before handling securities and corporate litigation at the trial and appellate levels at law firms in New York City. She also worked briefly for the Securities and Exchange Commission.As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know! You can email us at leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet to @lawtofact. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter and Instagram (@lawtofact) and to like us on FaceBook! And finally, your ratings and reviews matter! Please leave us a review on iTunes. Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact? Join our mailing list by visiting us at www.lawtofact.com. This episode is sponsored by Kaplan Bar Review. Getting ready for the bar exam means you’ll need to choose the study program that’s right for you. Kaplan Bar Review will get you ready to take on test day with confidence by offering $100 off live and on-demand Bar Review with offer code Leslie100. Visit kaplanbarreview.com today to sign up.

Tim Muris is a former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and currently a George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, at Scalia Law School and Senior Counsel at the law firm Sidley-Austin. He has substantial experience in every aspect of antitrust enforcement as well as in key consumer protection issues, including advertising, consumer finance and privacy regulation. During his lengthy tenure with the FTC, Mr. Muris held multiple high-level posts and was the only person ever to direct both of the FTC’s enforcement bureaus. It was under his leadership that the FTC established the National Do Not Call Registry and brought numerous high-profile cases against firms for misusing government practices to raise prices. Professor Muris has held three previous positions at the Commission: Assistant Director of the Planning Office (1974-1976), Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection (1981-1983), and Director of the Bureau of Competition (1983-1985). After leaving the FTC in 1985, Muris served with the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget for three years. Jon Neuchterlein is a partner and co-leader of Sidley’s Telecom and Internet Competition practice, focuses on telecommunications law, antitrust, and appellate litigation. He rejoined the firm in 2016 after serving as General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission. Jon’s extensive government experience also includes positions as Deputy General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, as Assistant to the Solicitor General, and as law clerk to D.C. Circuit Judge Stephen Williams and Supreme Court Justice David Souter. He is the author (with Phil Weiser) of a widely cited treatise on telecommunications law and policy. The Best Lawyers in America recently named Jon as the 2019 “Lawyer of the Year” for Communications Law in Washington, D.C. As the FTC’s General Counsel from 2013 to 2016, Jon represented the FTC in court, provided legal counsel on a range of antitrust and consumer protection issues, and oversaw the Commission’s appellate litigation activities. Their paper, "Antitrust in the Internet Era: The Legacy of United States v. A&P", can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7

Daniel Foster of National Review Online and Greg Corombos of Radio America reflect on the life and political legacy of President George H.W. Bush, who died on Friday.  They applaud Bush's service in World War II and many stops in his career of public service and also remember his leadership and the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union crumbled, his successes in the Gulf War, and his support for embattled Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.  They also wince at some low points, namely the selection of David Souter to the Supreme Court and breaking his pledge never to raise taxes.  And they point out that while the media  is largely extolling Bush for his leadership and decency today, their despicable coverage of Bush during his political career painted a much different picture.  

It's our annual Supreme Court term roundup, with special guest Ian Samuel. We discuss, natch, one case, Carpenter v. United States, which concerns the need for a warrant to get records from cell phone companies concerning the location of your phone. But there's much more, including: hard drive upgrades, the sum total of human writing, audio vs. text for messaging, emojis, AI and grunts, Supreme Court-packing / balancing / restructuring (16:37), what rules of procedure an enlarged Court should set for itself and what rules should be imposed on it (29:00), podcast lengths and listening habits (51:04), Carpenter v. United States(01:02:06), Batman movies, and Hold-Up. This show’s links: First Mondays (http://www.firstmondays.fm) Ian Samuel’s writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=936551) Ian Samuel, The New Writs of Assistance (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3075587) Snopes, Did Facebook Shut Down an AI Experiment Because Chatbots Developed Their Own Language? (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-ai-developed-own-language/) (no, but interesting) Oral Argument 134: Crossover (http://oralargument.org/134) Christian Turner, Amendment XXVIII: A First Draft (https://www.hydratext.com/blog/2018/7/12/amendment-xxviii) Ian Ayres and John Witt, Democrats Need a Plan B for the Supreme Court. Here’s One Option. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-need-a-plan-b-for-the-supreme-court-heres-one-option/2018/07/27/4c77fd4e-91a6-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html) Oral Argument 37: Hammer Blow (http://oralargument.org/37) (with Michael Dorf); Oral Argument 38: You're Going to Hate this Answer_ (http://oralargument.org/38) (with Steve Vladeck); Christian Turner, Bound by Federal Law (http://www.hydratext.com/blog/2014/10/29/bound-by-federal-law) (including links to posts by Michael and Steve on the issue of state courts' not being bound by federal circuit courts) Carpenter v. United States (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_new_o75q.pdf) Radiolab, Eye in the Sky (https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/update-eye-sky/) Ian Samuel, Warrantless Location Tracking (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1092293) Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=659168721517750079) Florida v. Jardines (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2570635442757547915) Justice Souter’s discussion of Plessy and the role of history in judging (http://www.c-span.org/video/?284498-2/america-courts) (watch from minute one until about minute fourteen) and his Harvard Commencement speech (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/) on Plessy Hold Up! (http://www.hydratext.com/blog/2015/7/24/hold-up) Special Guest: Ian Samuel.

Independent, investigative news, reporting, interviews and commentary

Independent, investigative news, reporting, interviews and commentary

We talk with Charles Barzun about what it means to be a legal pragmatist. But first we start with the ending and then talk John Hodgman, the F words (Framers and Founders), the old 2x debate, and finally (at 13:31) about legal pragmatism and its many senses. We connect the topic to interpretation, ethics, the age of our legal asteroid, families, infidelity, rupture, continuity, Justice Souter, quietism agonistes, and more. This show’s links: Charles Barzun’s faculty profile (https://content.law.virginia.edu/faculty/profile/clb6x/1144315) and writing (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=546584) Charles Barzun, Three Forms of Legal Pragmatism (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3178155) About Shane Carruth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Carruth), director of Primer and Upstream Color Judge John Hodgman (https://www.johnhodgman.com/JJHO) and John Hodgman, Vacationland (https://www.amazon.com/Vacationland-True-Stories-Painful-Beaches/dp/B074F3CWXZ/) Brian Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (https://www.amazon.com/Social-Legal-Theory-Modern-Transformation/dp/1316638510) Charles Barzun, Inside/Out: Beyond the Internal/External Distinction in Legal Scholarship (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2507260) Guy Kahane, Evolutionary Debunking Arguments (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3175808/) Charles Barzun, Justice Souter’s Common Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3035402) Oral Argument 146: Somehow in the Middle (http://oralargument.org/146) (with Charles discussing Justice Souter) Special Guest: Charles Barzun.

Supreme Court Justice Neal Gorsuch ruled against the Administration on a major immigration case, is he another David Souter?The Washington Post and New York Times were awarded a Pulitizer Prize for their fake news of Russia collusion hoax.And the president is now surrounded by neocons and war hawks, can he keep his campaign promises and resist the dogs of war.

Today's Flash Back Friday comes from Episode 64, from December 2011. What happens when the government plays doctor? Join Jason Hartman as he interviews the producer of the documentary, “Sick & Sicker,” Logan Darrow Clements. Logan went to Canada and interviewed doctors, patients, journalists, and even a doctor who went on a hunger strike, to find out how well a government-run healthcare system actually works. He shares some of his findings with Jason and encourages Americans to pay attention to the cold hard facts and downfalls of Obamacare. He discusses the similarities between Obamacare and Canada's government-run healthcare system. In his film, he even shows how supply and demand do not match up in a medical system run by politicians. Long waits in doctors' offices, hospitals, and clinics ensue and some treatments can take months to be approved, if they're approved at all. Anyone in America receiving government healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid already knows the pitfalls and high cost of government interference, where some medications and treatments are denied and the patient must come up with the money from their own pocket to treat a condition or even save their own life. Logan Darrow Clements is an entrepreneur and managing member of Freestar Movie, LLC in Los Angeles, California. He graduated from the University of Rochester in Economics in 1991 and William E. Simon Graduate School of Business Administration in Finance and Marketing in 1992. He is best known for his “Lost Liberty Hotel” project, a rebellion against eminent domain abuse in 2005 that involved him trying to seize the house of Supreme Court Justice David Souter using his own ruling in the Kelo vs. City of New London case.

With Charles Barzun, we discuss Justice Souter and the nature of legal justification. But we take the long way around to get there, starting with some of Souter’s opinions, moving on to philosophy – the nature of moral reasoning and its relation to fact and intuition – and then back to legal theory and Charles’s insight concerning Justice Souter’s jurisprudence. This show’s links: Charles Barzun’s faculty profile (https://content.law.virginia.edu/faculty/profile/clb6x/1144315) and writing (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=546584) Charles Barzun, Justice Souter’s Common Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3035402) Justice Souter’s discussion of Plessy and the role of history in judging (http://www.c-span.org/video/?284498-2/america-courts) (watch from minute one until about minute fourteen) and his Harvard Commencement speech (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/) on Plessy Some Souter opinions Joe loves: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16686162998040575773), Markman v. Westview Instruments (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5582995013670943601), and California Dental Assoc. v. Federal Trade Commission (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8595505836313744277) Old Chief v. United States (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2711105174348004240); Oyez’s Old Chief page, including links to the oral argument and hand-down (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-6556) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994); Oyez’s Casey page, including links to the oral argument and hand-down (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744) John Burnett, Border Patrol Arrests Parents While Infant Awaits Serious Operation (http://www.npr.org/2017/09/20/552339976/border-patrol-arrests-parents-while-infant-awaits-serious-operation) Noah Feldman’s Constitution Day interview of Justice Souter (https://www.c-span.org/video/?288993-2/former-justice-souter-constitution) Special Guest: Charles Barzun.

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Trump has made his decision on the big cabinet post — secretary of State — and it’s ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson.   There is no way to sugar-coat this: Tillerson is a disastrous pick. Those who share the mentality of transnational corporate leaders like Tillerson are pre-conditioned to supporting the foreign policy establishment mindset on critical issues so as not to upset the applecart and what’s good for business.   While much of his issue portfolio is a blank slate, what we know about him and his past comments are disturbing. These concerns go beyond his ties to Russia, which in fact, should not even be the primary focus of his confirmation hearings. The real concern cuts to the core of what conservatives are looking for in any department head, especially the State Department.   Trump should have appointed a secretary of State who regards the current State Department with as much disdain as Scott Pruitt regards the EPA. The problem we have at the State Department is not a management crisis. We have a moral and intellectual problem with the State Department that has persisted for decades. It stems from a deep-rooted culture of moral relativism and an “America-last” mindset. As such, we needed a man with a strong ideological rudder who understands the issues, is on the right side of them, and willing to bust up the entire State Department structure and the global foreign policy apparatus.   Both sides of this debate are too consumed with Russia — pro and con. Some of the new pro-Russia “conservatives” are praising Tillerson just because he’s close to Putin. Opponents, such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain, are voicing concerns solely because of his ties to Russia. However, there are many other foreign policy issues that are important.   For example, is a man with his background really the type of person to oppose refugees, a Palestinian State, cooperation with Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood? Where does he stand on political Islam? Where does he stand on the Iran deal and reinstating sanctions? Does he support backing “Syrian rebels” in the Syrian civil war, helping Iran in Iraq, or our current involvement in Libya? What would he do about the 15-year disaster in Afghanistan?   To be fair, these are all questions that must be answered by any nominee, but traditionally we’ve had some sense of direction from the nominee before the Senate confirmation hearings, which don’t take place until the administration is already up and running.   And although we know nothing about where Tillerson stands on these issues, he is absolutely not the type of person who would fight the inveterate players and insufferable mentality within the system that stands opposed to America’s interests. That is why people like James Baker, Condi Rice, Bob Corker, and Robert Gates — the embodiment of the problem with foreign policy — are enthusiastically supporting him. In that respect, nominees for secretary of State are much like Supreme Court picks. Given the one-directional gravitational pull and inertia towards liberalism within the legal profession, unless someone has absolutely demonstrated a record as a solid originalist willing to buck the system, he will wind up being a David Souter. There is no middle ground. Likewise, with foreign policy, if someone has not demonstrably opposed the Baker/Condi views on open borders, Palestinians, and political Islam, he will be part of the problem.   The most important quality in politics is a strong and fierce ideological conviction to fight the moral relativism in global affairs. Other qualities are important but useless if someone is lacking that ideological rudder to row upstream in this environment. Even someone who is inherently neutral on these issues will wind up downstream in the cesspool of the global foreign policy establishment, much less someone with the connections, mindset, and “pragmatism” of a major transnational CEO.   Tillerson’s past comments in support of Common Core, a carbon tax, the homosexual agenda at the Boy Scouts, and TPP are not mere distractions to his foreign policy views, as some might suggest.   First, we must remember that the State Department has been used as a conduit to support social liberalism for years. But more foundationally, they reveal an establishment mindset that would preclude him from bucking the trend on issues that are clearly within the scope of secretary of State, such as refugees, Syria, Palestinians, Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood.   Tillerson is likely the first nominee for secretary of State ever who has absolutely no political — much less foreign — policy experience. Some supporters laud this fact as a symbol of an “outsiders’” administration. However, these people don’t understand what it means to be a true outsider or insider. There is no greater outsider than one who worked in the system, understands the issues and the politics, and swam upstream to fight the ideology of the political establishment. Conversely, there is no greater insider than someone who never officially worked in the field but subscribes to and is connected to the very essence of the system.   There is nothing inherently wrong with having no official diplomatic experience, if he understands the issues and policies, and most importantly, subscribe to the right ideology and is willing to fight the global elites to change course on the critical issues.   I’d take a guy like Andy McCarthy as secretary of State any day of the week, even though he never worked in the State Department. But Tillerson is not exactly an Andy McCarthy.  As Mark Levin asked last week, if this is just about making deals across the world why not appoint the CEO of 7-Eleven?  Indeed, we’ve come a long way from the days of John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, and Edmund Randolph as Secretaries of State.   Unless conservatives get positive answers on some of these critical questions, they should not vote to confirm Tillerson. We don’t need another Bob Corker, albeit with closer ties to Putin. Important links Tillerson promoting the homosexual agenda at Boy Scouts of America Tillerson supports a Carbon tax Tillerson big supporter of Common Core Tillerson’s strong relationships with Saudi Arabia and Qatar   Tillerson praised the Trans-Pacific Partnership Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Don’t Worry About Trump, Hillary, the Election, or the State of our Nation, Worry About Your Own Civic Ignorance. I'm A Loser, happens every month, at the end of the month. You send us stuff, and we discuss it. We take a couple of calls from the losers and talk about my testicles, pharmaceutical use in America, Cannabis, and Ayahuasca or Iowaska. We get some encouragement and thoughts from you all on Facebook, Instagram, and email. Then we spend some time reading a great article you sent in from Glen Beck? What a Gay, Muslim, Pakistani-American Immigrant Learned Traveling to Rural Alaska the Week Before the Election. By Riaz Patel. As we wrap up the show, a new Loser sent in an amazing video of former Supreme Court Justice David Souter sharing his fear of losing democracy due to Americans being ignorant about civics and how government works. LISTEN ON iTunes | Soundcloud | Stitcher | Google Play | TuneIn

November 16, 2015 - Today, we travel back 75 years to a dark period of the Second World War. But the battlefield where liberty and tyranny clash isn't Midway or Normandy Beach. It's the hallowed halls of the United States Supreme Court. Our guide into this world is Kermit Roosevelt. His novel is Allegiance, a legal thriller built around the internment of Americans with Japanese ancestry -- 62% of them American citizens -- under Franklin Roosevelt's infamous Executive Order 9066. Kermit Roosevelt happens to be distantly related to FDR through his great-great grandfather, Theodore Roosevelt. He's also a constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, winner of the Philadelphia Athenaeum Literary Award for his previous novel, In the Shadow of the Law, and a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Nelson DeMille wrote, "My favorite World War II historical novel was Herman Wouk's The Winds of War. Now I have two favorites. Kermit Roosevelt's Allegiance is an instant classic." We also mentioned our interview with David O. Stewart, and his book on the Father of the Constitution: Madison's Gift: Five Partnerships That Built America.    

What’s your favorite case? It’s a difficult question, but in this episode Christian answers it: the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson that upheld racial apartheid under the “separate but equal” principle. Joe accuses him of cheating a bit, because Christian’s “favorite” is actually Justice Harlan’s celebrated solo dissent. Its greatness, though, does not lie in any sort of perfection. Severely flawed and yet great, at the same time. This show’s links: Plessy v. Ferguson, which you should scan through as bit, as recommended during the show Some background here and here on Homer Plessy and his act of civil disobedience Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Plessy v. Ferguson: Who Was Plessy? Justice Souter’s discussion of Plessy and the role of history in judging (watch from minute one until about minute fourteen) and his Harvard Commencement speech on Plessy United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which Harlan joined a dissent arguing that those children of Chinese citizens who are born in the United States should not receive citizenship; see here for a summary Gabriel Chin, The Plessy Myth: Justice Harlan and the Chinese Cases

David Souter uses the history and development of ICT4D as a framework to critique ICT4D approaches and consider the relevance of ICTs and ICT4D to the post-2015 development agenda. The presentation will use the history and development of ICT4D - and its relationships with both development policy and the ICT sector - as a framework to critique ICT4D approaches and consider the relevance of ICTs and ICT4D to the post-2015 development agenda. It will draw, inter alia, on recent work for the World Bank, to assess ICTs in post-conflict reconstruction; for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, to address the relationship between ICTs and sustainability; and for UNCTAD and the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, to consider the implications of emerging ICT trends for developmental outcomes.

David Souter uses the history and development of ICT4D as a framework to critique ICT4D approaches and consider the relevance of ICTs and ICT4D to the post-2015 development agenda. The presentation will use the history and development of ICT4D - and its relationships with both development policy and the ICT sector - as a framework to critique ICT4D approaches and consider the relevance of ICTs and ICT4D to the post-2015 development agenda. It will draw, inter alia, on recent work for the World Bank, to assess ICTs in post-conflict reconstruction; for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, to address the relationship between ICTs and sustainability; and for UNCTAD and the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, to consider the implications of emerging ICT trends for developmental outcomes.

David Souter uses the history and development of ICT4D as a framework to critique ICT4D approaches and consider the relevance of ICTs and ICT4D to the post-2015 development agenda. The presentation will use the history and development of ICT4D - and its relationships with both development policy and the ICT sector - as a framework to critique ICT4D approaches and consider the relevance of ICTs and ICT4D to the post-2015 development agenda. It will draw, inter alia, on recent work for the World Bank, to assess ICTs in post-conflict reconstruction; for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, to address the relationship between ICTs and sustainability; and for UNCTAD and the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, to consider the implications of emerging ICT trends for developmental outcomes.

David Souter uses the history and development of ICT4D as a framework to critique ICT4D approaches and consider the relevance of ICTs and ICT4D to the post-2015 development agenda. The presentation will use the history and development of ICT4D - and its relationships with both development policy and the ICT sector - as a framework to critique ICT4D approaches and consider the relevance of ICTs and ICT4D to the post-2015 development agenda. It will draw, inter alia, on recent work for the World Bank, to assess ICTs in post-conflict reconstruction; for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, to address the relationship between ICTs and sustainability; and for UNCTAD and the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development, to consider the implications of emerging ICT trends for developmental outcomes.

At the age of 69 and after 18 years on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter made the announcement that he would be retiring from the Supreme Court at the end of this year’s term in June. Law.com bloggers and co-hosts, J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi welcome Professor Daniel J. Meador, James Monroe Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Virginia School of Law and Kermit Roosevelt, Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania Law School and Justice Souter's former law clerk, to reflect on Justice Souter's career, look at the potential list of replacements and the opportunity for President Obama to leave an imprint with his choice for the High Court.

In The Hostile Work Place Podcast, Episode #2, we discuss the most explosive of work subjects, sexual harassment.  During the show we explain how the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes two types of sexual harassment:Quid Pro Quo (latin for "something traded for something")Hostile Work Environment based on sex We also explain how you can evaluate whether or not an action can be considered sexual harassment by using the idea of "unwelcomeness".If unwelcomness is established, a court will look to four factors to evaluate whether a hostile work environment based on sex exists.  Those four factors are:Frequency of the offensive conductSeverity of the offensive conductWhether the offensive conduct was physically threatening or intimidatingWhether the offensive conduct interfered with the performance of your job duties The case where these four factors were discussed most recently is Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc. (April 28, 2008).The two U.S. Supreme Court cases mentioned in the show are Burlington v. Ellerth and Faragher v. Boca Rotan.  Summaries of each and links to downloadable versions of the full case are immediately below.  However, if you would like to go straight to the forum where we are discussing this episode of the podcast just click HERE.Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998)Facts of the Case After working for Burlington Industries for 15 months, Kimberly B. Ellerth quit because she allegedly suffered sexual harassment by her supervisor - Ted Slowik. Despite her refusals of Slowik's advances Ellerth did not suffer any tangible retaliation and was, in fact, promoted once. Moreover, while she remained silent about Slowik's conduct despite her knowledge of Burlington's policy against sexual harassment, Ellerth challenged Burlington claiming that the company forced her constructive discharge. Question Can an employee, who despite refusing sexually harassing advances by a supervisor suffers no adverse job-related consequences, recover against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, without showing that the employer was responsible for the supervisor's harassing conduct? Conclusion Yes. In a 7-to-2 opinion, the Court held that employers are vicariously liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those over whom they have authority. In cases where harassed employee's suffer no job-related consequences, employers may defend themselves against liability by showing that they quickly acted to prevent and correct any harassing behavior and that the harassed employee failed to utilize their employer's protection. Such a defense, however, in not available when the alleged harassment culminates in an employment action, such as Ellerth's. Faragher v. City of Boca Rotan, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)Facts of the Case After resigning as a lifeguard, Beth Ann Faragher brought an action against the City of Boca Raton and her immediate supervisors, alleging that the supervisors had created a sexually hostile atmosphere by touching, remarking, and commenting. Faragher asserted that this conduct constituted discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court concluded that Faragher's supervisors' conduct was sufficiently serious to alter the conditions of her employment and constitute an abusive working environment. The court then held that the city could be held liable. In reversing, the en banc Court of Appeals held that Faragher's supervisors were not acting within the scope of their employment when they engaged in the harassing conduct, that knowledge of the harassment could not be imputed to the City, and that the City could not be held liable for negligence in failing to prevent it. Question May an employer be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the acts of an employee whose sexual harassment of subordinates has created a hostile work environment amounting to employment discrimination? Conclusion Yes. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that an employer is vicariously liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor. The Court also held that such liability is subject to an affirmative defense looking to the reasonableness of the employer's conduct as well as that of the plaintiff victim. "The City had entirely failed to disseminate its policy against sexual harassment among the beach employees and that its officials made no attempt to keep track of the conduct of supervisors like [Faragher's]," wrote Justice Souter, "[u]nder such circumstances, we hold as a matter of law that the City could not be found to have exercised reasonable care to prevent the supervisors' harassing conduct."

The 93rd annual Reed College commencement ceremony took place on Monday, May 14, 2007. Mr. Hohengarten '84 is a partner at the Washington, D.C., office of the law firm Jenner & Block, concentrating in Supreme Court and appellate litigation. At the request of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, he was one of the leaders of the legal team that successfully challenged state sodomy laws in the landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas. Hohengarten majored in history at Reed, studied in Germany on a Fulbright, obtained a Ph.D. in philosophy at Northwestern University, then attended Yale Law School. He was a notes editor on the Yale Law Journal and clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter before entering private law practice. He is an avid wilderness camper and has run seven marathons.

The resignation of Justice William J Brennan and the appointment of David Souter, and the process of appointing a new judge to the Supreme Court, as discussed by Alistair Cooke.