Podcast appearances and mentions of Justice Thomas

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

In breaking news, there are not 4 votes on the US Supreme Court to overturn the Constitutional right for people to marry who they choose and same sex marriage, as the Supreme Court refuses to hear on appeal the case of Kim Davis, the clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same sex couples on religious grounds. Michael Popok explains how Davis, the stalking horse of the MAGA right-wing religious zealots who sought to have the Court follow Justice Thomas' call to have same sex marriage as a constitutional right protected from State attack, overturned, and how even MAGA justices like Amy Coney Barrett and Alito think that's going too far. Lola Blankets: Get 40% off your entire order at https://lolablankets.com by using code LEGALAF at checkout. Experience the world's #1 blanket with Lola Blankets. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why Gorsuch is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 7 in a series) about his faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- this is a real hoot. Part 7: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dissents, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover the Republican dissenting opinion written by Justice Alito (joined by Justice Thomas) through Roman numeral I letter A. Part 7. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

What do First Amendment rights have in common with Calvin and Hobbes? In Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the First Amendment is on trial, and according to Prof. Eric Goldman, it looks like the referees are playing Calvinball. On the latest episode of Tech Policy Grind, hosted by Justice Shannon, Prof. Goldman, a leading First Amendment scholar and law professor, breaks down the Supreme Court's fractured logic in this pivotal case. His take? Justice Thomas didn't follow precedent, he put it in a blender, cherry-picking fragments of past rulings to justify a result that was already decided. It's a bold critique of how the Court handles First Amendment rights in the digital age and a warning for the future of content regulation, free speech, and tech policy.

One can only hope. ----- For a long time, the bar exam seemed like the nasty habit that the legal profession just couldn't quit. But there's finally some progress on that front, with Utah unveiling a new alternative pathway to licensure that values experience and the skills that an actual practitioner needs. We also check in on Cadwalader, where the firm brings on a new co-manager while taking some serious blows in the lateral market. Finally, the Supreme Court is back in session, so we look back at the summer of shadows, when the Court's shadow docket finally crashed into the reality of a president unwilling to play the game and Justice Thomas shed a little light on his decision to bail on teaching his class after Dobbs.

One can only hope. ----- For a long time, the bar exam seemed like the nasty habit that the legal profession just couldn't quit. But there's finally some progress on that front, with Utah unveiling a new alternative pathway to licensure that values experience and the skills that an actual practitioner needs. We also check in on Cadwalader, where the firm brings on a new co-manager while taking some serious blows in the lateral market. Finally, the Supreme Court is back in session, so we look back at the summer of shadows, when the Court's shadow docket finally crashed into the reality of a president unwilling to play the game and Justice Thomas shed a little light on his decision to bail on teaching his class after Dobbs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The only news you can trust comes from conservative sources.The rest of it is propaganda…MADE UP!!I thought Justice Thomas was joking when he told me this. And even when I realized that much of the news was fake, I still reserved some judgement. I'm watching this show about foreign governments using social media to generate news in America (and elsewhere). They establish groups, get people to join. Then set up counter groups, and get the two groups fighting each other.What appears to be legit has been staged, sort of.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a district court issue a nationwide (universal) injunction that blocks enforcement of a federal executive order beyond the specific parties involved in the lawsuit?The case was decided on June 27, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Federal courts likely lack equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions that prohibit enforcement of executive actions beyond the parties before the court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts possess only those equitable remedies “traditionally accorded by courts of equity” at the time of the founding. The Court finds no historical precedent for universal injunctions in English equity courts or early American practice. English equity courts operated through party-specific proceedings, where relief was limited to those actually before the court. While bills of peace allowed courts to adjudicate rights of dispersed groups, these involved small, cohesive groups and bound all members—unlike universal injunctions that protect non-parties without binding them. The historical absence of universal injunctions until the mid-20th century confirms they fall outside traditional equitable authority.The complete relief principle permits courts to fashion remedies that fully redress plaintiffs' injuries, but complete relief does not equal universal relief. Courts may award relief that incidentally benefits non-parties when necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs, such as in nuisance cases where divisible relief is impossible. However, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against individual plaintiffs' children provides them complete relief without requiring nationwide application. For state plaintiffs claiming administrative and financial harms, the Court remands for lower courts to determine whether narrower injunctions could provide complete relief, such as prohibiting enforcement within plaintiff states or treating affected children as eligible for federally funded benefits.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, emphasizing that courts must not expand the complete relief principle to recreate universal injunctions under a different name and that relief should be tailored to redress only plaintiffs' particular injuries.Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, warning that lax enforcement of third-party standing requirements and class certification procedures could create loopholes that undermine the Court's holding against universal injunctions.Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion explaining that while universal injunctions are improper, plaintiffs may still seek classwide preliminary relief under Rule 23(b)(2) or ask courts to set aside agency rules under the Administrative Procedure Act, and emphasizing that the Court will continue to serve as the ultimate arbiter of the interim legal status of major federal actions.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that universal injunctions have deep roots in equity's history through bills of peace and taxpayer suits, that the Executive Order is patently unconstitutional under the Citizenship Clause, and that limiting injunctive relief will leave constitutional rights meaningful in name only for those unable to sue.Justice Jackson authored a separate dissenting opinion arguing that the majority's decision creates an existential threat to the rule of law by allowing the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not sued, effectively creating zones where executive compliance with law becomes optional rather than mandatory.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

On June 27th, the Supreme Court ruled in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton that Texas’s age-verification law did not violate the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Justice Thomas wrote the Court’s opinion, holding that States had a right to protect children from obscenity, even if that meant incidentally burdening adults’ own access to that content. Many are celebrating the 6-3 decision as a victory for the protection of children, as it will cement similar laws in the 21 other states that have implemented them. Yet, as in Justice Kagan's dissent, others worry about Paxton’s implications for Freedom of Speech in the digital age. When does an incidental burden become a substantial violation of adults' First Amendment Rights? What kind of precedent does Paxton set for speech cases going forward?

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court.The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not impose the same jurisdictional limitations as the Fourteenth Amendment because the federal government occupies a sovereign sphere dramatically different from that of state governments. While the Fourteenth Amendment's jurisdictional limits protect interstate federalism by ensuring states do not exceed their territorial boundaries as coequal sovereigns, these federalism concerns are inapplicable to the federal government, which possesses both nationwide and extraterritorial authority. The Constitution authorizes the federal government alone to regulate foreign commerce, prosecute offenses against U.S. nationals abroad, and conduct foreign affairs. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment permits a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry commensurate with the federal government's broader sovereign authority than the “minimum contacts” standard required under the Fourteenth Amendment.The PSJVTA represents a permissible exercise of this authority because it narrowly targets only two specific foreign entities that have longstanding, complex relationships with the United States involving terrorism concerns. The statute's jurisdictional predicates—payments to imprisoned terrorists and their families, and activities conducted on U.S. soil—directly implicate important federal policies aimed at deterring terrorism and protecting American citizens. The political branches' coordinated judgment in enacting this legislation warrants judicial deference, particularly given the statute's limited scope applying only to ATA cases and its clear notice to the PLO and PA that specified conduct would subject them to U.S. jurisdiction. Even assuming a reasonableness inquiry applies under the Fifth Amendment, the PSJVTA satisfies it given the federal government's compelling interest in providing a forum for terrorism victims, the plaintiffs' interest in obtaining relief, and the absence of any unfair burden on these sophisticated international organizations that have litigated in U.S. courts for decades.Justice Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Gorsuch as to Part II, arguing that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause imposes no territorial limits on the federal government's power to extend federal jurisdiction beyond the nation's borders.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the Court considered whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court heard oral argument on April 1, 2025 and on June 20, 2025 a 9-0 Court ruled the PSJVTA did not violate the Fifth amendment because the statute "reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches."Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion for the Court, and Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Part II.Join us for a Courthouse Steps decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and discuss the potential effects of this case.Featuring:Erielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.   The Supreme Court held that Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.First, the Equal Protection Clause does not require heightened scrutiny because Tennessee's law does not classify on any bases that warrant such review. The law contains only two classifications: one based on age (allowing treatments for adults but not minors) and another based on medical use (permitting puberty blockers and hormones for certain conditions but not for treating gender dysphoria). Classifications based on age or medical use receive only rational basis review—the most deferential standard of constitutional review. The law does not classify based on sex because it prohibits healthcare providers from administering these treatments to any minor for the excluded diagnoses, regardless of the minor's biological sex. When properly understood as regulating specific combinations of drugs and medical indications, the law treats all minors equally: none may receive these treatments for gender dysphoria, but minors of any sex may receive them for other qualifying conditions like precocious puberty or congenital defects.The law satisfies rational basis review because Tennessee's legislature had reasonable grounds for its restrictions. The state found that these treatments for gender dysphoria carry risks including irreversible sterility, increased disease risk, and adverse psychological consequences, while minors lack the maturity to understand these consequences and many express later regret. Tennessee also determined that the treatments are experimental with unknown long-term effects, and that gender dysphoria can often be resolved through less invasive approaches. Under rational basis review, courts must uphold laws if there are any reasonably conceivable facts supporting the classification. States have wide discretion in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty, noting that recent reports from health authorities in England and other countries have raised similar concerns about the evidence supporting these treatments for minors.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, arguing that Bostock v Clayton County (in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination because of sex includes discrimination based on transgender identity or sexual orientation) should not apply to Equal Protection Clause analysis and criticizing deference to medical experts who lack consensus and have allowed political ideology to influence their guidance on transgender treatments for minors.Justice Barrett authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause because they lack the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of a “discrete group” and because suspect class analysis should focus on a history of de jure (legal) discrimination rather than private discrimination.

For thirty years, Clarence Thomas has been denounced as the “cruelest justice,” a betrayer of his race, an ideologue, and the enemy of the little guy. Today, Judge Amul Thapar will demolish that caricature. Every day, Americans go to court. Invoking the Constitution, they fight for their homes, for a better education for their children, and to save their cities from violence. “Finding the right answer,” Justice Thomas has observed, “is often the least difficult problem.” What is needed is “the courage to assert that answer and stand firm in the face of the constant winds of protest and criticism.”Become a Parshall Partner: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/inthemarket/partnersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We're joined by a special guest, Harvard Law Professor Stephen Sachs, to talk about Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. Fuld is last week's big personal jurisdiction case, where the Court upheld federal laws extending jurisdiction to the PLO and PA for antiterrorism lawsuits. The author of several important articles on these issues and an amicus brief in Fuld, Steve gives us his take on the relationship between personal jurisdiction, international law and due process, and helps us evaluate the majority opinion and Justice Thomas's concurrence.

In Kousisis v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud--even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. It heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on May 22, 2025, issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Barrett affirming the lower court's holding that the defendant could be convicted of federal fraud.Although the Court was unanimous, there are an array of opinions. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, and Justice Sotomayor wrote to concur in judgment.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.Featuring:Brandon Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein

Perhaps nobody was more surprised than the US gun industry when the Supreme Court yesterday issued a UNANIMOUS decision in their favor, and against the efforts of the failed narco-nationstate Mexico to sue the gun industry into oblivion.That means even our two dumbest justices--Sonya "the DEI wise latina" Sotomayor and Kentaji "I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a woman is" Jackson felt compeled to side with the gun makers.Perhaps as surprising, it was Justice Kagan--not Justice Thomas!--who authored the unanimous decision in favor of Smith & Wesson and other prominent gun manufacturers.Join me as I break down this enormous gun industry win into plain English!Get Your FREE Copy of Our Best-Selling Book: "The Law of Self Defense: Principles"Visit Here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook"You are wise to buy this material. I hope you watch it, internalize it, and keep it to the forefront whenever you even think of reaching for a gun"-Massad Ayoob (President of the Second Amendment Foundation) The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

Once again the Supreme Court of the United States has violated its sown oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but allowing the anti-Second Amendment rulings of inferior federal courts to stand in place.Yesterday SCOTUS declined to review two vital Second Amendment cases involving assault weapons and large capacity magazine bans. Though Justice Kavanaugh in concurrence with the denial writes that they'll take on these issues "in a year or two," in the meantime tens of millions of Americans are being denied their Second Amendment rights. Justice Thomas wrote in dissent against this denial, and we'll break that down into plain English for all of you LIVE in this show. Get Your FREE Copy of Our Best-Selling Book: "The Law of Self Defense: Principles"Visit Here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook"You are wise to buy this material. I hope you watch it, internalize it, and keep it to the forefront whenever you even think of reaching for a gun"-Massad Ayoob (President of the Second Amendment Foundation) The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

Toby Leary covers the Supreme Court's denial of cert in Snope v. Brown—a major blow to gun owners in states with AR-15 bans. He breaks down Justice Thomas's scathing dissent and what it means for the future of the Second Amendment.

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation the Court was presented with the question of whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency. The Federal Circuit had initially held that Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the FAA and reserve officer in the coast guard was not entitled to differential pay for parts of his time when he had been called to active duty during the early and mid-2010s. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on April 30, 2025 a 5-4 court reversed the decision below. Justice Gorsuch penned the majority opinion, and Justice Thomas wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we break down and analyze the decision and the opinions, and discuss the potential ramifications of this case. Featuring: Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law (Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court issued an order blocking the deportation of Venezuelan illegal immigrants under an 18th-century law. Justice Alito and Justice Thomas dissented, criticizing the decision as hasty and legally questionable. The ruling was made without giving lower courts a chance to rule or hearing from the opposing party. Implications for the Trump Administration: The ruling poses a challenge to the Trump administration's efforts to deport illegal immigrants. The decision was seen as a significant roadblock, with concerns about its impact on future immigration policies. Procedural Concerns: The dissent highlighted procedural issues, including the quick turnaround time for the ruling and the lack of jurisdiction. The process was compared to emergency appeals in death penalty cases, where last-minute filings can lead to rushed decisions. Political Strategy: The discussion suggests that the Democrats might be aiming to frustrate the Supreme Court justices to influence future rulings against the Trump administration. The strategy involves creating legal and procedural hurdles to delay or block deportation efforts. Vandalism Incident: We also mention a separate incident involving a Minnesota state employee who vandalized multiple Tesla vehicles. The district attorney decided not to press charges, leading to frustration among law enforcement and the public. The discussion touches on broader issues of lawlessness and political bias in prosecuting crimes. Democratic Party Disarray: A discussion on the internal challenges within the Democratic Party. Polling data shows declining confidence in Democratic leaders, with significant dissatisfaction among party members. The potential for younger politicians to step forward and the impact of senior Democrats retiring are also discussed. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening #seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmericaYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Democratic Senators' Stance on Illegal Immigration: The podcast criticizes Democratic senators for their stance on illegal immigration, particularly focusing on MS-13 gang members. Senator Chris Van Hollen from Maryland is highlighted for his visit to El Salvador to meet with an MS-13 gang member, which the hosts find astonishing and politically motivated. The discussion includes a critique of Van Hollen's defense of the gang member's due process rights and the broader implications of this stance for the Democratic Party. Supreme Court Decision on Deportations: The podcast covers a Supreme Court decision that temporarily halted the deportations of Venezuelan illegal immigrants. Justice Alito and Justice Thomas dissented strongly against this decision, arguing that it was hastily and prematurely granted. The hosts express concern about the implications of this ruling for the Trump administration's immigration policies and the broader legal and political landscape. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening #seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmericaYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Favorite Things: Slow Burn: Becoming Justice Thomas Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

In 2019, Justice Clarence Thomas raised the prospect of overturning one of the most consequential free speech decisions ever made. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is a 1964 landmark case that strengthened First Amendment protections by enabling journalists and writers, from top national outlets to local newspapers and bloggers, to pursue the truth without being afraid of being sued. In his book Murder the Truth, author David Enrich explores how Justice Thomas' words coincide with a surge in legal threats and litigation against journalists and media outlets.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Mouth noises. Jack reads for Frost & Fury. How to extort potential sponsors. Face tats for an edge. How to extort your college admissions. Jack reads for Justice Thomas. The Questionable Material Stock Market Report: Amazon, Proctor & Gamble, Merck. Jack reads for GroverClevelandBook. qmpodcast.com

Riding Shotgun With Charlie #221 Mark Oliva NSSF,  Managing Director of Public Affairs   Heading down to Virginia for a few other shows, I was able to connect with Mark Oliva. He's been on my radar as a potential passenger for sometime. I met him last year at SHOT. You can't miss him. He wears a big cowboy hat. Many others do, too. But he has an NSSF badge that says “All Access.” We were able to meet at an “undisclosed location” in Northern Virginia. His job at NSSF takes him into DC regularly.    We start off with some Range Day benefits, like Mark being able to figure out what he wants on his Christmas list. Then we cover talking about taking new folks shooting and shopping for their first gun. And why it's important for ranges to have family friendly facilities and not just a five gallon bucket for a portable bathroom. If we want to get more people into the shooting sports, then we need to make it more comfortable and enjoyable for them. If places aren't welcoming to women, he calls it the “hey, little lady complex.” He and his wife, a former Marine, went to one of those ranges and his wife outshoot everyone else in the class.    Mark was born in New England and went into the Marine Corps right out of high school. He spent 25 years serving the country. He's lived all around the country while serving. And picked up a drawl living in the Carolinas. He got orders to work on Capitol Hill and then he was offered a position at the NSSF. Summing up one career into the other, he says that he went “from one big gun club to another.”   With his current position at NSSF as the Managing Director of Public Affairs, he's on 24/7. He's got two phones; a personal and a work phone. When the work phone rings, he has to answer it. Any day. Any time. Because he has to be knowledgeable about everything that's going on, he says he knows “a lot about a lot of things but it's hard to drill down and become a subject matter expert.” His job in the military was also in public affairs, so this was an easy transition. He enjoyed talking about the Marines and wanted the same thing in his other career.   I do love it when people say the 2A events around the country, SHOT, NRA AM, GRPC, are a family reunion. It is exciting to go to these events, but it's just as important to see and catch up with friends that we've made and the relationships we've built. Mark says the folks at the NSSF, no matter what they do, love hunting and shooting and keeping the firearm industry going and thriving.    Mark talks about how he doesn't give any credence to the media who want to take our rights away. So he can and does have to be firm with them. With everything that is going on, he can't walk blindly into conversations with reporters. When he has these discussions, he's got to have the facts to refute some of the untruths that reporters throw at him.    We talk about how big the industry is, but also about how small it is. He runs into people that are with one company, then move to another company doing the same thing. All these folks, the movers and shakers, know each other. It's a bit like the six degrees of separation. Or as I've heard it called, the Olympic rings of the gun community.    I ran into Mark at SHOT last week. He was wearing a cowboy hat. Shocking, I know. He's all over making sure everyone is getting the things they need and taken care of. SHOT week is really the NSSF's Super Bowl of the shooting and outdoor industry. Everyone is on the go, on their feet, from sunup to way after sundown. And it's always a great week!   Favorite quotes: “You come out to SHOT Show, you can't buy anything at the show. But man this is a great place to make a Christmas list.” “It was really easy and natural for me to have that kind of job, so why would I not want to do that in my next career?”  “When it comes to the facts, you've got to have a good solid knowledge of those facts, and a handle on those facts.” “You've seen Justice Thomas repeatedly say that the lower courts are denigrating the Second Amendment to a second class right. And he's frustrated with it.” NSSF Website https://www.nssf.org/   NSSF Facebook https://www.facebook.com/NSSFcomm/   NSSF Instagram https://www.instagram.com/thenssf/   NSSF LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/national-shooting-sports-foundation   NSSF YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/thenssf   NSSF X https://x.com/NSSF Second Amendment Foundation https://secure.anedot.com/saf/donate?sc=RidingShotgun    Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms https://www.ccrkba.org/     Please support the Riding Shotgun With Charlie sponsors and supporters.    Dennis McCurdy Author, Speaker, Firewalker http://www.find-away.com/   Self Defense Radio Network http://sdrn.us/   Buy a Powertac Flashlight, use RSWC as the discount code and save 15% www.powertac.com/RSWC   SABRE Red Pepper Spray  https://lddy.no/1iq1n   Or listen on: iTunes/Apple podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/riding-shotgun-with-charlie/id1275691565

Tonight on The Last Word: The NOLA terrorist attack shows the stakes for the incoming administration's picks. Also, the Judicial Conference denies Democrats' request to refer Justice Thomas to the Justice Department for ethics violations. Plus, it is unclear if Mike Johnson has the votes to remain Speaker. And President Biden awards 20 outstanding Americans with the Presidential Citizens Medal. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse and Rep. Eric Swalwell join Lawrence O'Donnell.

On this week's episode of ‘The Katie Phang Show': As the year closes, Congress suits up for a turbulent year ahead that could see Speaker Johnson facing a tough battle to keep his Speakership. Rep. Becca Balint joins to share her thoughts on how Democrats plan to keep Congress functional. Plus, a new report from Senate Judiciary Democrats is laying out the specifics of the Supreme Court's ethics concerns. Slate's Mark Joseph Stern joins to discuss the report, as well as the status of any potential legislative reforms. All that and more on ‘The Katie Phang Show'.

  Move over, Hatfields and McCoys—America's got a new feud to gawk at. Except this time, there are no moonshine stills, shotgun standoffs, or Appalachian drama. Sadly for Democrats, this is the modern age, where political pettiness is played out on camera; with forced applause and awkward grins as the soundtrack. The players? Joe and Jill Biden vs. Kamala Harris and her “Second Gentleman” (because nothing says modern marriage like giving your husband a title that sounds like a rejected superhero name). The scene? The Kennedy Center Honors, where the Bidens pulled a move so cold Frosty the Snowman had to put on a sweater. Newsbreak https://www.newsbreak.com/share/3708714498817-the-bidens-ignore-harris-and-her-husband-at-kennedy-center-honors-event?s=a3&share_destination_id=MTk0ODc1NzU2LTE3MzM4Njk0MDYzMzA=&pd=0DBg5MN1&hl=en_US&send_time=1733869406&actBtn=bottomBar&_f=app_share&trans_data=%7B%22platform%22%3A1%2C%22cv%22%3A%2224.48.0%22%2C%22languages%22%3A%22en%22%7D&sep=ns_foryou_model_exp_24q4-v9%2Cns_foryou_blend_exp_24q4-v1%2Cns_foryou_rank_exp_24q4-v8%2Cns_local_strategy_24q4_exp-v7%2Cns_foryou_recall_exp_24q4-v8%2Cns_push_exp_rt_bucketv12-v6: "President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden gave a cold shoulder to Vice President Kamala Harris and her husband, second gentleman Doug Emhoff, as they entered the 47th Kennedy Center Honors to an applauding crowd. The president and first lady were seen on video not making eye contact or acknowledging the vice president and her husband as they walked past them and waved alongside them. The vice president and second gentleman remained effusive and applauded the Bidens during the standing ovation despite the first couple ignoring them." First of all, can we take a moment to appreciate the power of passive aggression? The Bidens basically perfected the art of the social snub. No glares, no side comments—just pure, unadulterated “I don't see you, Kamala” energy. That takes skill, or maybe just years of marriage practice. Still, when Joe and Jill Biden were announced, Kamala and hubby clapped like trained seals. Nevertheless, let's hit rewind. This tension didn't start at the Kennedy Center. It's been brewing since at least Veteran's Day, when Jill Biden gave Kamala the cold shoulder so sharp it could've sliced through steel. What's the beef? The plot to get rid of Joe. During the period where Democrats contemplated dumping Joe Biden, Harris quietly circled the Oval Office like a hawk eyeing a wounded rabbit. Everybody knows that she had been "read in" on the coup conspiracy". Remember, this partnership wasn't exactly built on a solid foundation of trust and camaraderie. Biden and Harris weren't teammates; they were co-workers forced into the same cubicle. And just like in any dysfunctional office, one person inevitably starts plotting their takeover the moment the boss trips over his own shoelaces—metaphorically or otherwise. Kamala's mistake? She forgot to be subtle. Harris was to Brutus as Biden was to Caesar. And on the https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/21/politics/fec-biden-harris-campaign-account/index.html, Harris lured Biden into the chambers and it was knives out. This feud isn't just personal—it's deeply ironic. These two were supposed to be the ultimate DEI power couple, the living embodiment of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” And yet, their partnership has ended not with a bang but with a whimper—followed by a very public cold shoulder. DEI brought them together; meritocracy is tearing them apart. And let's not ignore the racial subtext here. If a Republican president had pulled this move on a Black female VP, the media would be spinning like a carnival ride. But with Joe Biden? Crickets. If anyone's keeping score at home, this is the same Joe Biden who gave Hunter a free pass on more crimes than your average Bond villain. But Kamala? She's not getting so much as a sympathy hug. So what's next for these two? The Bidens are on their way out, with Joe clutching his “most pardons handed out to family members” trophy. Kamala, meanwhile, is back to being a political punchline, waiting for someone—anyone—to take her seriously. As for the Second Gentleman? Let's just hope Doug has a good therapist on speed dial. The irony is almost poetic. Two political climbers brought together by convenience, undone by their own egos. It's like watching a reality TV show where everyone loses. In the end, the Biden-Harris feud won't go down in history like the Hatfields and McCoys. There won't be ballads sung or documentaries made. But for now, it's the perfect blend of comedy and tragedy to keep us entertained—until the next scandal comes along.  Subscribers and BSC I did my first podcast for Subscribers and I must say it is one of my best. Thanks Bill for reminding me that we needed to kick that off. Talk about a special broadcast. Only 14 people will get to hear it. But it's 14 of the finest people on the planet. I had a BLAST putting that together for you. For members of The Back Stage Club, get ahold of me, and we will make the broadcast available to you as well. I will do at least one of those every couple of weeks (minimum), and on BSC, we post things as we develop them. They come more in batches, but I will work on more consistency there too. I have observations from Japan, Mexico, and soon to be Thailand along with pictures and videos. Also, I found the video I made with Justice Thomas, so expect me to post that soon.     We Saved the Republic: The Fragile Triumph Over Chaos The last election preserved the constitutional republic we hold dear, narrowly steering the nation away from the precipice of destruction. Over the past 16 years, Democrats have spent 12 tearing at the fabric of the nation, creating cultural and political divides so wide that chaos seemed inevitable. A Harris presidency would have only accelerated this unraveling. Thankfully, we avoided that scenario. But the specter of such leadership reminds us how close we came to disaster. A Nation at Rest—or at Least at Pause Despite the dire warnings from the left, America hasn't plunged into chaos since Trump's return to the political arena. Recent events suggest a marked shift in the national climate. Consider Daniel Penny's recent exoneration—a moment that could have ignited protests led by Black Lives Matter. Yet, the country remained calm, unmoved by the provocations that once would have led to streets filled with unrest. This shift raises an interesting question: Are we finally moving past the endless state of cultural panic? Can figures like Darren Wilson reclaim their careers in law enforcement, or could Derek Chauvin see his conviction re-evaluated under a new climate of fairness? Perhaps, just perhaps, white America can finally lower the metaphorical "RED ALERT."Democracy vs. Republic: Are They What They Seem? According to a https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/14/more-than-half-of-countries-are-democratic/, as of 2017, 57% of the world's nations were considered democracies. But does this mean democracy is flourishing? By that measure, it may seem like global democracy is at a modern-day high. Yet, appearances can be deceiving. Many of these so-called democracies lack the principles that Americans associate with the term. Pew writes: Concern has been growing for the past several years about the https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/sites/default/files/Howe-28-4.pdf, and there is considerable https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/04/29/many-across-the-globe-are-dissatisfied-with-how-democracy-is-working/ with how democracy is working in practice. But public support for democratic ideals https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/04/29/many-across-the-globe-are-dissatisfied-with-how-democracy-is-working/, and by one measure, global democracy is at or near a modern-day high. As of the end of 2017, 96 out of 167 countries with populations of at least 500,000 (57%) were democracies of some kind, and only 21 (13%) were autocracies. Nearly four dozen other countries – 46, or 28% – exhibited elements of both democracy and autocracy. Broadly speaking, the share of democracies among the world's governments has been on an upward trend since the mid-1970s, and now sits just shy of its post-World War II record (58% in 2016). The totalitarian policies implemented during COVID-19 tell a different story. Lockdowns, mandatory vaccinations, and open-border policies—policies largely rejected by the people—showed how easily governments could abandon democratic ideals for autocratic actions.The Rise of Nationalism Across the globe, we're seeing a growing backlash. Immigration policies that once welcomed refugees have now become gateways for young, war-aged men aiming to establish caliphates within foreign nations. But the tides are turning. Countries are beginning to reclaim their national identities. Deportations of radicals have started, albeit slowly. Citizens demand leaders who prioritize cultural preservation over globalist agendas.  France has a long-standing history of legislation restricting Islamic clothing. In 2004, France banned religious Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-kevin-jackson-show--2896352/support.

On December 9, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence v. The School Committee for the City of Boston. The case involved an equal protection challenge to a change in admissions policy in Boston, where a competitive public school altered its admissions criteria in a manner that reduced the number of Asian and Caucasian students. The lower courts rejected the challenge, with the First Circuit indicating that an equal protection challenge to a facially neutral policy—like admissions criteria that do not mention race—must establish that the impact on the targeted race was so severe as to reduce their numerical presence in the school below their demographic numbers in the relevant population.By denying certiorari, the Court left the First Circuit’s opinion in place. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, issued a dissent from denial, as they had in a similar case earlier this year called Coalition for TJ. Justice Gorsuch issued a statement respecting the denial, stating that he largely agreed with Justice Alito’s dissent.This litigation update will evaluate the state of the law when it comes to “proxy discrimination” measures, and whether an equal protection claim must establish a particularly onerous disparate impact on the targeted race at issue.Featuring: Christopher M. Kieser, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

[SEGMENT 1-1[ DEI Divorce: Biden-Harris   Move over, Hatfields and McCoys—America's got a new feud to gawk at. Except this time, there are no moonshine stills, shotgun standoffs, or Appalachian drama. Sadly for Democrats, this is the modern age, where political pettiness is played out on camera; with forced applause and awkward grins as the soundtrack. The players? Joe and Jill Biden vs. Kamala Harris and her “Second Gentleman” (because nothing says modern marriage like giving your husband a title that sounds like a rejected superhero name). The scene? The Kennedy Center Honors, where the Bidens pulled a move so cold Frosty the Snowman had to put on a sweater. Newsbreak reported: "President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden gave a cold shoulder to Vice President Kamala Harris and her husband, second gentleman Doug Emhoff, as they entered the 47th Kennedy Center Honors to an applauding crowd. The president and first lady were seen on video not making eye contact or acknowledging the vice president and her husband as they walked past them and waved alongside them. The vice president and second gentleman remained effusive and applauded the Bidens during the standing ovation despite the first couple ignoring them." First of all, can we take a moment to appreciate the power of passive aggression? The Bidens basically perfected the art of the social snub. No glares, no side comments—just pure, unadulterated “I don't see you, Kamala” energy. That takes skill, or maybe just years of marriage practice. Still, when Joe and Jill Biden were announced, Kamala and hubby clapped like trained seals. Nevertheless, let's hit rewind. This tension didn't start at the Kennedy Center. It's been brewing since at least Veteran's Day, when Jill Biden gave Kamala the cold shoulder so sharp it could've sliced through steel. What's the beef? The plot to get rid of Joe. During the period where Democrats contemplated dumping Joe Biden, Harris quietly circled the Oval Office like a hawk eyeing a wounded rabbit. Everybody knows that she had been "read in" on the coup conspiracy". Remember, this partnership wasn't exactly built on a solid foundation of trust and camaraderie. Biden and Harris weren't teammates; they were co-workers forced into the same cubicle. And just like in any dysfunctional office, one person inevitably starts plotting their takeover the moment the boss trips over his own shoelaces—metaphorically or otherwise. Kamala's mistake? She forgot to be subtle. Harris was to Brutus as Biden was to Caesar. And on the Ides of July, Harris lured Biden into the chambers and it was knives out. This feud isn't just personal—it's deeply ironic. These two were supposed to be the ultimate DEI power couple, the living embodiment of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” [SEGMENT 1-2] Democracy on the rise? Subscribers and BSC I did my first podcast for Subscribers and I must say it is one of my best. Thanks Bill for reminding me that we needed to kick that off. Talk about a special broadcast. Only 14 people will get to hear it. But it's 14 of the finest people on the planet. I had a BLAST putting that together for you. For members of The Back Stage Club, get ahold of me, and we will make the broadcast available to you as well. I will do at least one of those every couple of weeks (minimum), and on BSC, we post things as we develop them. They come more in batches, but I will work on more consistency there too. I have observations from Japan, Mexico, and soon to be Thailand along with pictures and videos. Also, I found the video I made with Justice Thomas, so expect me to post that soon.     We Saved the Republic: The Fragile Triumph Over Chaos The last election preserved the constitutional republic we hold dear, narrowly steering the nation away from the precipice of destruction. Over the past 16 years, Democrats have spent 12 tearing at the fabric of the nation, creating cultural and political divides so wide that chaos seemed inevitable. A Harris presidency would have only accelerated this unraveling. Thankfully, we avoided that scenario. But the specter of such leadership reminds us how close we came to disaster. A Nation at Rest—or at Least at Pause Despite the dire warnings from the left, America hasn't plunged into chaos since Trump's return to the political arena. Recent events suggest a marked shift in the national climate. Consider Daniel Penny's recent exoneration—a moment that could have ignited protests led by Black Lives Matter. Yet, the country remained calm, unmoved by the provocations that once would have led to streets filled with unrest. This shift raises an interesting question: Are we finally moving past the endless state of cultural panic? Can figures like Darren Wilson reclaim their careers in law enforcement, or could Derek Chauvin see his conviction re-evaluated under a new climate of fairness? Perhaps, just perhaps, white America can finally lower the metaphorical "RED ALERT."Democracy vs. Republic: Are They What They Seem? According to a Pew Research report, as of 2017, 57% of the world's nations were considered democracies. But does this mean democracy is flourishing? By that measure, it may seem like global democracy is at a modern-day high. Yet, appearances can be deceiving. Many of these so-called democracies lack the principles that Americans associate with the term.   [SEGMENT 1-3] FBI at J6 1 J6 is unraveling for the Left. A Capitol Comedy: The FBI's J6 Revelations Newly revealed testimony confirms what skeptics of the January 6 narrative have long suspected: the FBI's involvement wasn't just passive oversight but an active participation, complete with paid informants and undercover agents. According to disclosures during congressional hearings, there were so many FBI confidential human sources (CHS) at the Capitol that the agency had to “poll” its offices afterward to figure out how many were on-site. The cherry on top? At least three of these informants were specifically directed to attend by their handlers.. If this sounds like the punchline to a poorly executed spy thriller, that's because it is. The Numbers Game: More Agents than We're Told? The FBI claims only three informants were actively encouraged to attend. But as a former Capitol Police chief has testified, there were at least 18 undercover FBI agents mingling in the crowd, in addition to an estimated 20 undercover operatives from the Department of Homeland Security. Defense attorneys in Proud Boys trials also revealed that eight CHSs had infiltrated their group, and at least one was physically inside the Capitol during the breach​. This raises the question: if we were told it was a spontaneous “insurrection,” why did federal agencies embed dozens of operatives in advance? Was this infiltration an attempt to mitigate violence—or to stoke it? FBI operations, including infiltrating groups or rallies, typically require meticulous planning and oversight. [SEGMENT 1-4] FBI at J6 2   [X] SB – Kamala Harris on J6 [X] SB – Paid protester on J6 [X] SB – Congressman speaks on the number of agents at J6   The FBI's focus on January 6 highlights a troubling pattern. While the bureau assigns agents to monitor political rallies, it seems conspicuously less effective at preventing other, more tangible threats. We've seen this pattern before—mass shooters who were already on FBI watchlists, an open southern border exploited by known terrorists, and even whistleblowers within the agency alleging systemic dysfunction​ If the FBI's resources were deployed to prevent violence, they failed spectacularly. If the goal was to justify the post-election crackdown on Trump supporters, well, they've done a bang-up job.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-kevin-jackson-show--2896352/support.

[SEGMENT 2-1] More Leftist lunacy 1 Leftism is not just an American disease. But we are the super spreaders. Not us, the people who listen to my program. But the people you ignore, because you find them too tedious to heed. Ignore them no more. You see what can happen when you do.   To paraphrase Shakespeare on how much I detest Leftists: How do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways.I loathe thee to the depth and breadth and spiteMy rage can muster, seeing Leftist blight,From Hunter's laptop to inflation's haze. I loathe thee for the lies spun every day,From "men can birth" to "science lights the way."I loathe thee freely, as you mandate masks;I loathe thee purely, dodging honest tasks. I loathe thee with the passion spared for fools,Who coddle Fauci and ignore his rules.I loathe thee with the grief of every lie,From "peaceful protests" to why prices fly. I loathe thee with my breath, my taxed-out sighs,My rolling eyes at claims that Joe's still spry.And, if God choose, when truth reclaims its throne,I'll loathe thee deeper, for the sins you own.   [X] SB – Katie Hopkins South Korean president impeached. France without a person running the Parliament. No elections until June 2025 Marine LePen could run France Notre Dame opening…invited Trump   Germany VW strike   Argentinian President Javier Milei is ending free social benefits for migrants. As part of his ongoing pro-Argentinian agenda, he will be ending free healthcare for foreigners and automatically deporting foreigners who commit crimes. Sounds pretty sensible to me.     The ACLU lawyer argued that a 2-year-old knows if he's a girl, and could be castrated…   [X] SB – Ketanji Brown-Jackson re transgender decision Justice Alito asking if trans status is immutable is one of the greatest legal questions I've ever seen. Civil Rights exist solely based upon immutable human traits. Gender fluidity, by definition, is not immutable. Pure brilliance by Alito today. Justice Thomas sprung a killer question on the ACLU lawyer: "What remedy are you seeking?" Strangio, flummoxed by such a seemingly simple question said an injunction. Justice Thomas then asked "practically, you would get different treatment based on sex?" and the trap was laid. Strangio said the plaintiff (a girl who identifies as a boy) would be allowed to get drugs for "a typical male puberty" despite having a "birth sex [of] female." That answer made clear that girls who identify as boys would get a right under the Constitution to testosterone, but boys who identify as boys would not, which is...sex discrimination! Genius.  [SEGMENT 2-2] More Leftist lunacy 2 - The View in crisis   The Pathology of Stupidity: A Case Study in “The View” Let's talk about The View, that daytime carnival of cackles, where nuanced debate goes to die and the echo chamber reigns supreme. Apparently, the show's ratings are in the gutter. Shocker! It's like discovering that deep-fried Oreos aren't a health food. According to RadarOnline.com, ABC executives are panicking, grappling with the reality that perhaps parroting the same tired Leftist talking points isn't exactly riveting television. Diversity... But Not Really These execs are reportedly throwing around the word "diversity" like it's a holy grail they just stumbled upon. But let's be clear: The View's definition of diversity starts and ends with making sure the Starbucks order includes soy milk. Political diversity? A broader perspective? Forget it. The panel is a monolith of progressive groupthink, with each member seemingly competing for the "most sanctimoniously out-of-touch" award. It's no surprise they've been labeled a "radical progressive insane asylum" by Meghan McCain, a former co-host. She's not wrong. The lineup is as ideologically varied as a vegan potluck. Ignorance as a Lifestyle Choice Here's the fascinating part: despite the ratings dive, the hosts refuse to even dabble in self-reflection. It's as if they've taken the phrase "ignorance is bliss" and made it their personal mantra. Let's explore the pathology of this blissful ignorance. To live in such a bubble, one must actively avoid the following:Challenging Assumptions: The second someone proposes a viewpoint outside the groupthink, they're immediately shut down. Alyssa Farrah's recent attempt to suggest that Joe Biden might have lied about not pardoning Hunter was met with Whoopi Goldberg's swift correction. And like a scolded puppy, Farrah backed down.Facing Reality: It must hurt, at least a little, to know that even the network higher-ups are tired of the echo chamber. Yet, the hosts seem perfectly content to marinate in their ignorance, like a steak left too long in soy sauce—bitter and mushy.Tension (or Lack Thereof): Successful productions thrive on tension, the kind that sparks intrigue and debate. The View? It's like listening to a jazz band where everyone plays the same note over and over. Even when someone hints at a differing opinion, the dissonance is squashed immediately.A Radical Idea: Testing Theories  [SEGMENT 2-3] More Leftist lunacy 3   I'm so willing to learn. I do sudoku and word games for plasticity of the brain. They say learning something NEW is how you keep your brain active. This is what we should do every day. Challenge yourself. Challenge your mind.   What if the hosts of The View ventured outside their comfort zones? What if they poked a toe into the other side of the political pool, just to see if their theories hold water? Imagine the content! Whoopi Goldberg agreeing to read a book by Thomas Sowell. Joy Behar watching a Trump rally without throwing a shoe at the screen. Sunny Hostin debating Tulsi Gabbard without resorting to ad hominem attacks. The possibilities are endless. But no. Instead, they'd rather bask in the warm glow of their own self-righteousness, convinced that their worldview is the only one worth having. It's like watching people on a sinking ship insist the water is just a new kind of jacuzzi. ABC executives are reportedly considering adding a pro-Trump panelist to spice things up. This move is akin to tossing a lit firework into a room full of dynamite. The current hosts won't know what to do with someone who doesn't immediately genuflect to their ideology. The irony here is rich. Leftists preach inclusivity and tolerance but can't tolerate a single dissenting voice in their midst. It's as if they've confused “diversity” with “uniformity in different hairstyles.” Is Ignorance Really Bliss? There's a saying: “If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room.” The View ladies have managed to flip that on its head. They've created a room where being the dumbest is not only acceptable—it's celebrated. But ignorance, when worn as a badge of honor, does have consequences. At some point, reality comes knocking. For The View, that reality is sinking ratings, viewer fatigue, and the slow realization that parroting the same old talking points isn't working anymore. Why It Hurts Too much ignorance does hurt, even if they won't admit it. It's exhausting to constantly defend indefensible positions, to pretend that every gaffe by Biden is "fatherly love" and every Trump move is the end of democracy. At some point, the mental gymnastics have to take a toll. Or maybe not. Maybe they've transcended reason entirely and live in a state of perpetual denial, where facts are suggestions and logic is just a suggestion box no one checks. Final Thoughts If The View truly wants to save itself, it needs to embrace genuine diversity—not just in appearance but in thought. Until then, it will remain a cautionary tale of what happens when you marinate too long in your own sauce.      [SEGMENT 2-4] More Leftist lunacy 4 - CEO shot   [X] SB – Fox News on CEO got shot https://x.com/BNONews/status/1864531627755336119 The CEO of insurance giant UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, who was fatally gunned down in Manhattan today, was under DOJ investigation. Was he about to take a plea deal and reveal all about congressional favors that gained them their monopoly? Someone check on Nancy Pelosi. On February 21, 2024, UnitedHealth discovered a cybersecurity breach. On the same day, Nancy Pelosi made her second purchase of call options in Palo Alto Networks, a cybersecurity company that was later chosen to investigate the breach. UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was k*lled by a masked gunman today in the middle of a federal investigation led by the U.S. Department of Justice. Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was shot and killed in what looks like a professional hit job. The targeted killing occurred around 6:45 AM, outside the New York Hilton Midtown, where an investors meeting was being held. In the video footage, the killer is seen shooting Mr. Thompson Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-kevin-jackson-show--2896352/support.

After a tumultuous Supreme Court term that included the presidential immunity opinion and reporting that showed Justice Thomas received undisclosed gifts and favors from a GOP megadonor, President Biden has proposed changes to the court, including term limits and a code of ethics. Elie Mystal, justice correspondent and columnist for The Nation magazine and host of the podcast, "Contempt of Court with Elie Mystal," and author of Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution (New Press, 2022), offers legal analysis of the reforms, and talks about how much of a long a shot it is that any of this would make it through Congress. 

After a tumultuous Supreme Court term that included the presidential immunity opinion and reporting that showed Justice Thomas received undisclosed gifts and favors from a GOP megadonor, President Biden has proposed changes to the court, including term limits and a code of ethics.On Today's Show:Elie Mystal, justice correspondent and columnist for The Nation magazine, host of the new podcast, "Contempt of Court with Elie Mystal," and author of Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution (New Press, 2022), offers legal analysis of the proposed reforms, and talks about how likely it is that they would make it through Congress.

On July 15, Judge Cannon granted former President Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith for the alleged mishandling of classified documents. She found that Smith was appointed as a special counsel in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.In a live podcast recording, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes talked to Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett, Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower, Senior Editors Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic, and Columbia Law professor Michel Paradis about Judge Cannon's decision, what Special Counsel Jack Smith may do next, how the Eleventh Circuit may rule on an appeal, how Justice Thomas's immunity concurrence plays a role, and more.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on a new filing by Special Counsel Jack Smith before Judge Aileen Cannon about Justice Clarence Thomas' concurrence in the Supreme Court absolute immunity decision. ZBiotics: Head to https://zbiotics.com/MEIDAS to get 15% off your first order when you use MEIDAS at checkout. Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Join the Legal AF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's Headlines: On the second day of the NATO summit in DC, the focus is on defending against Russia's ambitions in Ukraine and beyond. NATO aims to "Trump-proof" the alliance, preparing for a possible US withdrawal if Trump is re-elected, and is committed to putting Ukraine on a path to NATO membership while calling out China for enabling Russia's invasion. Meanwhile, a Moscow court issued an arrest warrant for Yulia Navalnaya, widow of the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny, accusing her of participating in an extremist society. In the US, despite President Biden's insistence that his candidacy is settled, there is ongoing concern among Democratic lawmakers, donors, and even George Clooney, who suggested in a New York Times op-ed that the party needs a new nominee. On another front, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has filed articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito over undisclosed gifts, with two Senate Democrats requesting a special counsel to investigate Justice Thomas further. Finally, the Senate saw a rare moment of bipartisanship with an agreement on legislation to ban members of Congress, the president, and the vice president, along with their spouses and dependent children, from buying and selling stocks. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: WA Post: NATO leaders move to ‘Trump-proof' the alliance in Washington BBC: Russian court orders arrest of Yulia Navalnaya WA Post: Election 2024 latest news: Pelosi urges Biden to make a decision; Clooney calls for withdrawal  NY Times: George Clooney: I Love Joe Biden. But We Need a New Nominee Politico: AOC impeachment articles against Alito, Thomas - Live Updates The Guardian: Democratic senators call on DoJ to investigate Clarence Thomas CNBC: Senators strike bipartisan deal for a ban on stock trading by members of Congress Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage alongside Bridget Schwartz and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The consequential question before the Supreme Court on the limit and scope of presidential immunity has been decided, in three essential buckets. Veteran prosecutors Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord decipher the ramifications for the former president, for the January 6th case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, and for the broad constitutional authority of the presidency itself. And they are joined by Trevor Morrison, NYU law professor and Dean Emeritus, to discern the finer points of the decision and the warnings cast in dissents by both Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/carljacksonradio Twitter: https://twitter.com/carljacksonshow Parler: https://parler.com/carljacksonshow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarljacksonshow http://www.TheCarlJacksonShow.com NEW!!!! THE CARL JACKSON SHOW MERCH IS HERE. SUPPORT THE PODCAST GETTING A T-SHIRT NOW! https://carljacksonmerch.itemorder.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's News Day Tuesday! Sam and Emma speak with Elie Mystal, justice correspondent and columnist at The Nation, to discuss the recent rulings by the Supreme Court and what is still to come. First, Sam and Emma run through updates on Israel's foreknowledge of Hamas' 10/7 attack, US military aid to Israel, today's primaries, a new path to citizenship, bump stock legislation, IRS policy, Adobe's DOJ problem, FEMA, and Philly's falling murder rates, before parsing a little deeper through the new reports on Israel's 3-week heads-up on Hamas' terror attack last October. Elie Mystal then joins, diving right into the diligent delays in SCOTUS' refusal to take on Trump's immunity case as a perfect example of the differing approaches to a justice's reign between the conservatives and the liberals, with the former insistent on getting what they want, getting paid, and getting out of there, while the latter gets hung up in symbols and institutionalism. Mystal then looks to the recent Supreme Court decision to strike down the Trump-era ban on bump stocks, parsing through Justice Thomas' decision to weigh the legality from the perspective of the gun, rather than the shooter, before briefly running through SCOTUS' recent rejection of a challenge to Mifepristone, and what it can teach us about where this far-right Court is looking next. Wrapping up, Elie, Sam, and Emma unpack the future of the Supreme Court's attacks on the Chevron Doctrine and the administrative state. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma watch Mehdi Hasan perfectly illustrate the belligerent ignorance of Zionists, Joe Biden takes on the big threat to his presidency (TikTok zoomers), and the MR Crew assesses Biden's major new immigration plan. Sean from Washington tackles the Supreme Court's bump stock-ban-ban, Ritchie Torres crowns himself king of the Jews, Hussain from LA explores the incredible work of student protesters at UCLA, and Candace Owens unpacks why World War 2 was a failure for the US, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Elie's work at The Nation here: https://www.thenation.com/authors/elie-mystal/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Take action with Raise the Wage Oklahoma here: https://www.mobilize.us/raisethewageoklahoma/ Check out all volunteering opportunities ahead of Rep. Jamaal Bowman's primary on Tuesday 6/25!: https://www.mobilize.us/jamaalbowman/ Check out this canvassing event for Rep. Jamaal Bowman and volunteer if you can!: https://actionnetwork.org/forms/new-york-canvassing-event?source=tmr Phone bank for Rep. Jamaal Bowman through the Working Families Party here!: https://www.mobilize.us/workingfamiliespartycoordinated/event/624109/ Phone bank for Rep. Jamaal Bowman through "Jews For Jamaal" here!: https://www.mobilize.us/nea/event/618446/ Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Join Sam on the Nation Magazine Cruise! 7 days in December 2024!!: https://nationcruise.com/mr/ Check out the "Repair Gaza" campaign courtesy of the Glia Project here: https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/rebuild_gaza_help_repair_and_rebuild_the_lives_and_work_of_our_glia_team#!/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Ritual: Essential for Men is a quality multivitamin from a company you can actually trust. Get 25% off your first month for a limited time at https://ritual.com/ MAJORITY. Start Ritual or add Essential For Men to your subscription today. That's https://ritual.com/ MAJORITY for 25% off. Blueland Cleaning Products: Blueland has a special offer for listeners. Right now, get 15% off your first order by going to https://Blueland.com/MAJORITY. You won't want to miss this! https://Blueland.com/MAJORITY for 15% off.  Sunset Lake CBD: Relax, recharge, and remember to visit https://SunsetLakeCBD.com before June 18th to save 30% on all of their tinctures and participating bundles. See their website for terms and conditions. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Kimberly Atkins Stohr hosts #SistersInLaw to discuss Hunter Biden's conviction, the validity of evidence from the laptop, Joe's response, the sentencing process, and if an appeal might lead to the loosening of gun restrictions.  Then, the #Sisters examine the SCOTUS rulings on mifepristone and bump stocks, looking at why the Justices ruled the way they did and how standing affects which cases come before the court.  They also cover recent recordings of Justice Alito and his wife that point toward a religious bias that might merit future recusal, Justice Thomas' acceptance of more lavish gifts, and what it will take to bring ethics back to the court. Get your #SistersInLaw merchandise at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.  Please Support This Week's Sponsors: HelloFresh: Get farm-fresh, pre-portioned ingredients and seasonal recipes from HelloFresh with a free appetizer item per box for life with code: SISTERSAPPS at hellofresh.com/sistersapps Blueland: For 15% off your order of green cleaning products, go to blueland.com/sisters Thrive Causemetics: For 10% off incredible clean and cause-focused beauty products, go to thrivecausemetics.com/sisters Aura: Protect yourself and your loved ones online with a 14-day trial plus a check of your data to see if your personal information has been leaked when you go to aura.com/sisters Mentioned By The #Sisters: From Kim on the differences between Hunter Biden's and Donald Trump's convictions How standing determines cases before the Supreme Court Get Barb's New Book:  Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America Barb's Book Tour  Get More From #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack Jill Wine-Banks: Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | Unbound Newsletter Barb McQuade: Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC

A bump stock is an attachment that converts a semi automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire as many as 800 rounds per minute - an intensity of gunfire matched by machine guns. The deadliest mass shooting carried out by a single shooter in US history - the October 2017 Las Vegas massacre - was enabled by a bump stock. On Friday, the US Supreme Court struck down a Trump-era bump stock ban introduced in the wake of that tragedy, in which 60 people were killed and hundreds more injured. Writing for a perfectly partisan six to three majority, gun enthusiast and ultra conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, decided the administration had overstepped its authority enacting the ban, and based the decision in a very technical, very weird reading of the statute. On this Opinionpalooza edition of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's senior writer on the courts and the law - Mark Stern, and David Pucino, Legal Director & Deputy Chief Counsel of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Together, they discuss the careful reasoning and research behind the ban, Justice Thomas' self-appointment as a bigger gun expert than the agency charged with regulating guns - the ATF, how the gun industry used its own “amicus flotilla” from extreme groups to undermine the agency, and how the industry will use this roadmap again. But, please don't despair entirely, you'll also hear from David about hope for the future of gun safety rules.  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Plus listeners have access to all our Opinionpalooza emergency episodes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A bump stock is an attachment that converts a semi automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire as many as 800 rounds per minute - an intensity of gunfire matched by machine guns. The deadliest mass shooting carried out by a single shooter in US history - the October 2017 Las Vegas massacre - was enabled by a bump stock. On Friday, the US Supreme Court struck down a Trump-era bump stock ban introduced in the wake of that tragedy, in which 60 people were killed and hundreds more injured. Writing for a perfectly partisan six to three majority, gun enthusiast and ultra conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, decided the administration had overstepped its authority enacting the ban, and based the decision in a very technical, very weird reading of the statute. On this Opinionpalooza edition of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's senior writer on the courts and the law - Mark Stern, and David Pucino, Legal Director & Deputy Chief Counsel of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Together, they discuss the careful reasoning and research behind the ban, Justice Thomas' self-appointment as a bigger gun expert than the agency charged with regulating guns - the ATF, how the gun industry used its own “amicus flotilla” from extreme groups to undermine the agency, and how the industry will use this roadmap again. But, please don't despair entirely, you'll also hear from David about hope for the future of gun safety rules.  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Plus listeners have access to all our Opinionpalooza emergency episodes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

SERIES 2 EPISODE 190: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: Timing is everything, and for once the timing was perfect. Steve Bannon has been ordered to go to prison. Ordered on June 6th. Ordered on the anniversary of D-Day, when we destroyed everything his predecessors stood for. He doesn't get it yet. We will destroy HIM and what HE stands for. And all who stand with him. And Trump. And as he stood outside court - jailed by a Trump-appointed judge who once clerked for Clarence Thomas - he was boasting to the vapid press that, no, he will destroy us and his fascism will subsume America, as he insisted no jail would ever shut him up, a protestor behind him drowned him out with shouts of "Lock Him Up!" because when all you have is noise and threats, you tend to forget that there is always somebody else with more noise and bigger threats. THERE IS ALSO NEW POLLING on what happens if Trump joins him in the slammer. The Reuters-Ipsos Poll says actual jail time could cost Trump 23% of his voters. That could be as much as 17,000,000 votes. Even as time and timidity wear that number down, it's a remarkable game-changer. PLUS: Trump glitched again at a Word Salad Rally in Phoenix, while the Democratic National Committee is actually putting up billboards near his events emphasizing "CONVICTED FELON DONALD TRUMP." And there's more from The Supreme Court: a watchdog group says Clarence Thomas may have gotten as much as $4,000,000 in gifts in the last 20 years. And Brett Kavanaugh is writing a book! Hey! Is it a book about assault? B-Block (24:00) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: There's a name-that-hockey-team contest in Salt Lake City and the six final choices are all nightmarishly bad. So, Marco Rubio, Tim Scott, J.D. Vance, Doug Burgum, Ben Carson, Byron Donalds, and Elise Stefanik. You're being vetted to run with Trump? When he encouraged them to HANG the last guy? And your daily reason to fire Merrick Garland: there may be videotape of Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham and others at Fox vivisecting Trump and saying his 2020 Election claims are crap, and you are working to RETURN THESE TAPES TO FOX? C-Block (33:25) FRIDAYS WITH THURBER: Any time the news is full of Trump-driven drivel and MAGA conspiracies, is a good time to remember Thurber's account of the day in 1913 that the dam outside his home of Columbus, Ohio, broke and everybody fled. Only it hadn't broken - and they were running in the wrong direction anyway. "The Day The Damn Broke."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

SERIES 2 EPISODE 185: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: Do not be fooled by the dismissive attitude of the media of the impact on Trump voting support of the jury's finding of Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, and not NOT-Guilty. If, as the most circumspect pre-verdict polling suggests, 2% of his voters would peel away, that (based on 2020) is 1,500,000 voters and at least 5 electoral votes, and (based on 2016) would have been enough to throw Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to Clinton.  It reminds us that we should stop looking for the game-ender for Trump and rely instead on the incrementals, because they - and the justice that invoke them - will defeat him. Also, can the Trump cultists explain to me: are these 34 verdicts election interference that will stop Trump from winning, or are they a political gift that just gave him the election? Because you keep saying BOTH. PLUS: If you missed it, John Roberts just told Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse to go F themselves. He's king for life and he won't even talk to them about the Alito Scandal, or the OTHER Alito Scandal, or the Roberts scandal. Fine. Subpoena him. And if he ignores that, arrest him. This country is changing and those who act will decide whether it changes for the good or the bad, and we are the good guys. B-Block (32:40) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Clay Travis goes entirely racist on The View's Sonny Hostin (and even on the WNBA's Caitlin Clark). Minnesota GOP Senate likelihood Royce White (who played eight minutes and 55 seconds in the NBA and don't you forget it) is in trouble again. And the book sale numbers are in for Kristi Noem's Puppy Murder Diary book and I don't want to say they're not moving but the fall off from Week 1 to Week 3 is 9275% C-Block (41:25) FRIDAYS WITH THURBER: Only one story to tell on this day after: Thurber prophesying the life of Trump in something he wrote... in 1931!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this Opinionpalooza emergency bonus episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss Thursday's decision in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, highlighting the implications for racial gerrymandering and voting rights. They delve into Justice Alito's majority opinion, Justice Kagan's dissent, and Justice Thomas's concurrence. This decision would seem to effectively close the door permanently on racial gerrymander claims in federal courts. Dahlia and Mark discuss how this decision makes justice - and democracy - inaccessible for plaintiffs already shut out of the political system through racist maps with political excuses. In recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act and now seems intent on hollowing out equal protection and diluting the reconstruction amendments; the constitutional provisions central to building a thriving diverse democracy. This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this Opinionpalooza emergency bonus episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss Thursday's decision in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, highlighting the implications for racial gerrymandering and voting rights. They delve into Justice Alito's majority opinion, Justice Kagan's dissent, and Justice Thomas's concurrence. This decision would seem to effectively close the door permanently on racial gerrymander claims in federal courts. Dahlia and Mark discuss how this decision makes justice - and democracy - inaccessible for plaintiffs already shut out of the political system through racist maps with political excuses. In recent years, the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act and now seems intent on hollowing out equal protection and diluting the reconstruction amendments; the constitutional provisions central to building a thriving diverse democracy. This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes of Amicus, but you'll also access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

SERIES 2 EPISODE 177: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: A lawyer yelling "you're a liar" at a witness does not make him a liar, despite what Anderson Cooper says. The storyline before the Trump Trial began was: If Michael Cohen keeps his cool when Todd Blanche screams at him, he'll prevail. He did it, and yet the networks rushed to ignore it. Prosecutors have already said they'll only need about an hour of re-direct of Cohen next Monday, meaning that's all the time they expect to require to polish him back up. They are still winning - plus there is still the wild card that in his perpetual over-confidence Trump may testify. And yet that's not where I start because sometimes the most important story and the most interesting one are not the same thing. The primary sidebar takeaway from Cohen's testimony was based on a poorly worded tweet that the author, Ron Filipkowski, deleted. “Cohen testified that his main media contacts to get positive stories run about Trump were Maggie Haberman, Katy Tur, and Chris Cuomo." Except Cohen DIDN'T say that. He was asked if he had good relationships with reporters. Haberman? "Yes," he replied. Tur? "Yes." Cuomo? "Yes." I am thus in the position of defending - in part - the transactional Haberman, my appalling ex, and the ridiculous Cuomo.  Having said that, they are all imperiled because of what Cohen DID say.  Plus we have a really great punchline to the day in the courtroom in which a would-be Trump Insurrectionist learned that loyalty to him is a one-way street, even if the only thing you wanted was a wave. B-Block (29:43) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: Exactly what American journalism needed: Chris Cillizza has authored a "Mission Statement." It is even more hilariously self-unaware than any actual article he's ever written. C-Block (51:44) FRIDAYS WITH THURBER: A lot in this episode about the media, so let's hear from Thurber and how they tried to turn him into a radio star and instead turned him into a nervous wreck: "How To Relax While Broadcasting."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

SEASON 2 EPISODE 164: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: The 'Presidential Immunity' case beginning today at the Supreme Court? Trump's already won. Because while most of the coverage is binary (the Court will never invent something as anti-democracy as 'presidential immunity'/the Court will grant Trump presidential immunity) the real point here is that the delay already created by the Supreme Court's conspiracy to keep Trump from facing justice and to fix the election so he can seize power, has already guaranteed the jury can't possibly get the case before the election. The point from here on in is to extend that delay and the way to do that is to send the case BACK to Judge Chutkan with some lame ass "review" to see if there are parts of Jack Smith's indictments Trump might be immune from. Trump's already won. Plus: the Arizona Fake Elector Indictments are in. Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator and Giuliani and Christina Bobb are among EIGHTEEN just plain indicted. And as I always say, democracy survives not because of our efforts to preserve it, but by the stupidity of those who would destroy it. Fox nimrod Jesse Watters has found his analogy for Trump prevailing no matter how his enemies try to lay him low: Trump is King Kong. "And what happens with King Kong? You remember! So he's going to bust out of this cage eventually." Jesse doesn't know that King Kong gets killed. B-Block (24:09) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: The L.A. Dodgers get an entertainer who has sung the anthem at their games five different times ARRESTED for asking them to let her bring her purse into the stadium with her. Pastor Shane Vaughn thinks if you say 'I'm not calling Joy Reid...' followed by a really racist insult, it means you didn't call her that. And Cornel West thinks he's going to beat Trump and apparently does not know the people trying to get the signatures needed to get him on the ballot work...for Trump. C-Block (35:48) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: If it's Supreme Court day, why don't I tell the story of the day I was invited on a first date by a woman who thought the ideal thing to go see was...Clarence Thomas's chair at the Supreme Court. Yes, it was Laura Ingraham.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

SERIES 2 EPISODE 159: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: There's nothing better than a good NAP. “Now: Trump's head slowly dropped, his eyes closed. It jerked back upward. He adjusts himself. Then, his head droops again. He straightens up, leaning back. His head drops for a third time, he shakes his shoulders. Eyes closed still. His head drops. Finally, he pops his eyes open. My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains my sense, as though of hemlock I had drunk, or emptied some dull opiate to the drains." Honestly: You're Trump, on Monday they literally catch you napping. How do you possibly go in there yesterday and get caught napping… at least TWICE. One video, or one rapid-shutter sequence of still pictures of “Trump's head slowly dropped, his eyes closed. It jerked back upward. He adjusts himself. Then, his head droops again” and we don't have to WATCH the rest of the trial, he'd be DONE. Looks like we'll get this started Monday. Seven jurors chosen. I had forgotten what I learned during two days in the NYC jury pool in 2013: it is surprisingly easy to find enough people who don't know anything about anything to fill up a New York jury. Meanwhile Trump tried out his new defense: He knows nothing. Billionaire businessman, greatest mind of his or any other generation, but when it comes to paying off Stormy Daniels to bury her story and illegally keep bad facts about himself away from the eyes of the electorate weeks before the election, and then turning the thing into a clear crime by trying to write it off as a business expense? He knows nothing. He doesn't know the accountant. He doesn't know the lawyer. He didn't know anything about the document. He didn't know anything about the deduction. He just signed whatever they put in front of him. Because the billionaire businessman knows NOTHING about his own business! ALSO: The picture is a rare one of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene with her mouth shut. It's in The New Republic and above it the magazine's question is: “Russia is Buying Politicians in Europe. Is it Happening Here Too?” After Greene decided to try to fire another Speaker of the House to destabilize our government further, and her screw-up in the Mayorkas hearing, it's a question worth exploring. B-Block (24:38) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Baseball's uniform scandal is back. The pitcher is wearing the batboy's pants. The Speaker of the House had his brain trust look at his new bill first: Libs of TikTok and DC Draino and a 1/6 defendant. And I used to think the Supreme Court Justices were merely not there to do justice or defend the constitution. Now I'm not sure they're from this country, nor have more of a legal education than I do (and I took one law class 37 years ago). C-Block (33:00) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: Just passed the quarter century anniversary of one of the most fun, most unexpected events of my career. How many people do you know who can say this: Tom Hanks, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon pulled me on to the Red Carpet at the Oscars - and they broke my cummerbund!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, I uncover the "Connected to Russia" Scam that has Plagued the Trump Presidency and Elections. Key figure that Mueller report linked to Russia was a State Department intel source US says Russia was given Trump campaign polling data in 2016 John Oliver offers Justice Thomas millions to 'get the f--- off the Supreme Court' Copyright Bongino Inc All Rights Reserved Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices