Podcast appearances and mentions of Samuel Alito

One religious freedom case at the Supreme Court isn't getting the sort of attention as others, despite how it's uniting groups that often disagree. So, why did the justices sound so skeptical in the courtroom? Amanda and Holly review this week's oral arguments in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, which involves the remedy available to a man whose religious freedom rights were violated when he was in prison. The violation isn't in question, so why is the remedy? Amanda and Holly review the details in this case, play audio from key moments in the courtroom, and discuss the statute that protects prisoners' religious freedom rights: The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.     SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:35): RLUIPA, RFRA, and this case Amanda and Holly previewed the Landor case earlier this season – watch their conversation on BJC's YouTube channel.    BJC joined a diverse group of organizations on a friend-of-the-court brief in this case on the side of Mr. Landor – click this link to read the brief and see the groups who found common ground.   RLUIPA is the acronym for the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, passed by Congress in the year 2000. The acronym is often pronounced "Re-loop-ah." RFRA is the acronym for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, pronounced "Riff-rah." For more on the 2020 decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir, read this article on our website: Supreme Court rules RFRA allows monetary damages against federal officials    Segment 2 (starting at 11:05): What happened in the courtroom? Arguments on behalf of Mr. Landor The Supreme Court heard Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections on Monday, November 10. Visit the Supreme Court's website to read a transcript or hear the audio from the courtroom.  We played four clips from oral arguments in this segment.  Zack Tripp's opening statement, representing Mr. Landor (from 00:15-2:02 in the audio of the arguments) Exchange between Justice Samuel Alito and Zack Tripp (from 20:00-21:25 in the oral arguments) Exchange between Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Zack Tripp (from 23:35-25:56 in the oral arguments) Exchange between Justice Elena Kagan and Libby A. Baird, assistant to the solicitor general (from 1:06:38-1:07:38 in the oral argument)   Segment 3 (starting at 31:31): What did the state of Louisiana argue? We played one clip from the oral argument during this segment: Exchange between Justice Elena Kagan and Ben Aguiñaga, the solicitor general of Louisiana (from 1:38:33-1:40:26) Read more about the arguments in this article by Amy Howe for SCOTUSblog: Court appears skeptical of prison inmate's religious liberty claim Video of our episodes are now on YouTube! Click here for the season 7 playlist.  Do you want special emails about the show? Click here to sign up for our email list!  Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

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

Tuesday, November 11th, 2025Today, 8 Democratic Senators voted yes to proceed on a government funding bill that doesn't include an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies; the Trump administration moves to lift the ban on Abrego Garcia's removal so they can deport him to Liberia; the First Circuit Court of Appeals denies Trump's stay to block the payment of SNAP benefits; two top executives at BBC have resigned over the misleading edit of a Trump speech; a whistleblower tells House Judiciary Dems that convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell is in the process of seeking a commutation from Donald Trump; the Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis' long shot effort to overturn marriage equality; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, IQBARText DAILYBEANS to 64000 to get 20% off all IQBAR products, plus FREE shipping. Message and data rates may apply. Thank You, OneSkinGet 15% off OneSkin with the code DAILYBEANS at  https://www.oneskin.co/dailybeans #oneskinpodContacting U.S. Senators Find Your Representative | house.gov,LIVE: Trump COVER UP of DARK PAST BACKFIRES…GOP PANICS!!StoriesAppeals court denies Trump effort to halt full SNAP benefits for November | The Washington PostTrump administration moves to dissolve ban on Abrego Garcia's removal to deport him to Liberia | ABC NewsWhat to Know About the BBC Resignations and Turmoil Over a Trump Speech Edit | The New York TimesSupreme Court rejects long-shot effort to overturn same-sex marriage ruling | NBC NewsGood TroubleTesla Takedown (who had protests at over 300 Tesla dealerships in March) is having another day of action to protest Elon's trillion-dollar pay package.  Protests are this Saturday, November 15. TeslaTakedown.com**Sharonville City Hall on Wednesday, November 12th at 6:30pm. For more info, please visit Cincy Urban Farm**Group Directory - The Visibility Brigade: Resistance is Possible**Vote Yes 836 - Oklahoma is gathering signatures**How to Organize a Bearing Witness Standout**Indiana teacher snitch portal - Eyes on Education**Find Your Representative | house.gov, Contacting U.S. SenatorsFrom The Good Newsnhmarf.orgMutual Aid HubTeslaTakedown.comThe Pantry | Shenanigans ComedyHuntsville's Shenanigans Comedy Theatre opens free food pantry | rocketcitynow.comNew Name, Same Mission: the Dumb Friends League is Now Humane ColoradoDana Goldberg Outrageous Tour - November 14th ChicagoOur Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - Donate, MSW Media, Blue Wave CA Victory Fund | ActBlue, WhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - The 2025 Out100, BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comMore from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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

It's Tuesday, November 11th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson Nigerian Governor denies Christian genocide Just days after Nigerian Nasarawa State Governor Abdullahi Sule publicly denied the existence of religious persecution or Christian genocide in Nigeria, about 50 Fulani Muslim gunmen launched a deadly midnight assault on a Christian community in the state.   Three individuals were murdered and others were critically wounded in the massacre.   In protest, hundreds of youths from the community displayed the dead bodies of the victims and blocked traffic until the military showed up to disperse them.  They were protesting the persistent invasions and kidnappings, in hopes of some government intervention. According to Open Doors, Nigeria is the seventh most dangerous country worldwide for Christians. Sudanese civil war claims 70,000 civilian lives The ongoing civil war in Sudan, Africa is bringing untold losses to human life. Approximately, 70,000 civilians were killed in the last year, and the same number the year before. A paramilitary group, known as the “Rapid Support Forces,” is killing civilians with darker skin in the ethnic purge — and then burying the bodies in mass graves, reports Al Jazeera. America invested twice as much in Africa as China did The BBC reports that the U.S. has overtaken China as Africa's biggest investor for the first time since 2012. America invested $7.8 billion in 2023, compared to China's $4 billion. America absent from U.N. Climate Change Conference The 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference kicked off yesterday in Belém, Brazil. Notably, the U.S. federal delegation is absent, reports The Hill.com. 7 Democrats, 1 Independent join GOP to end gov't shutdown The U.S. Democrat Party has experienced a seismic split. In an historic development on the national scene, seven Democrat senators and one Independent senator agreed to a compromise with the Republicans in the U.S. Senate to bring the government shutdown to an end, report The Epoch Times. The defectors were Dick Durbin (D-IL), Catherine Masto (D-NV), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), John Fetterman (D-PA), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), and Angus King (I-ME). The big bone of contention among the Democrats in the shutdown concerned there hope of extending the Obamacare funding of individual and family health insurance.  Health insurers are corrupt and contribute heavily to Democrats Breitbart and American Resolve estimate that health insurers are taking in $1 trillion per year in federal subsidies, thanks to Obamacare. Plus, their stocks are up 1,000% since 2009. These companies contributed five times more funds to the Kamala Harris presidential campaign than they contributed to Donald Trump's campaign. And “Blue Shield of California donated $500,000 and UnitedHealth donated $75,000 to Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom's ballot measure effort, Prop. 50” which could give Democrat and insurance companies five additional seats in Congress. Even more egregious, federal auditors estimate that Medicare Advantage will overbill medical services somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 trillion this decade. Isaiah 1:23 warns of princes who “are rebellious, and companions of thieves. Everyone loves bribes and follows after rewards. They do not defend the fatherless, nor does the cause of the widow come before them.” Tucker Carlson in hot water for Nick Fuentes interview But then, the “conservative right” has their own dumpster fire going after Tucker Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes. (It was a 2-hour-long interview). Ben Shapiro, the conservative founder of The Daily Wire, referred to Carlson as the “most virulent super-spreader of vile ideas in America.”  Mark Levin layered on another epithet for Carlson, calling the conservative talk show host a “Nazi promoter. " And Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas called the Fuentes interview “cowardly and complicit." Supremes unlikely to affirm Trump's tariffs According to the SCOTUS BLOG, the U.S. Supreme Court appears doubtful as to the constitutionality of the Trump tariffs.   Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical in the oral arguments which took place last Wednesday.  Supreme Court will not reverse homosexual marriage The U.S. Supreme Court will not reverse Obergefell.   The high court issued their decision Monday to let the 2015 decision stand — codifying the legitimization of faux marriage for those living in unnatural relations, men with men, and women with women — here in the United States. The justices rejected an appeal from former Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis — who had refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples — on the basis of her religious beliefs. A few weeks ago, Justice Amy Barrett admitted her reluctance to oppose the homosexual campaign for same-sex faux marriage because of what she called "very concrete reliance interests,” reports the New York Times. These apparently did not include God's interests. In a speech Justice Samuel Alito gave a few months ago, he called the Obergefell decision a “precedent of the court that is entitled to the respect afforded by the doctrine of stare decisis.”   That's a legal term meaning the policy of following principles laid down in previous judicial decisions. Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel was quite disappointed.  He said, “The majority of Supreme Court Justices know Obergefell is wrong, and this case should have been granted review and reversed that unconstitutional opinion. We are committed to overturning Obergefell. Like the abortion issue in Roe v. Wade, the Obergefell opinion has no basis in the U.S. Constitution.” The Prophet Micah issued this lament in Chapter 7:2-4. “The faithful man has perished from the Earth, and there is no one upright among men. They all lie in wait for blood; The best of them is like a brier; The most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge; The day of your watchman and your punishment comes; Now shall be their perplexity.” Household debt shot up by 30% Total U.S. household debt has registered a 30% increase since 2020 — now at $18.5 trillion. And, the U.S. dollar has weakened against major currencies this year by about 10%. That's the worst performance since the Nixon presidency.   Meanwhile, gold has increased about 60% in value this year to date. Average American wedding costs $33,000 And finally, in other economic news, The Knot reveals that the average wedding now costs $33,000. And couples who invite over 140 guests will need to pay $40,000. The price tag is location dependent.  New York weddings run $48,000 while Wyoming weddings average $17,000. To compare, the cost of the average starter home in America this year, by RedFin's metric, is $260,000 with a down payment of $16,900. Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, November 11th, in the year of our Lord 2025, the 19th wedding anniversary of my bride Amy and me. Check out our love story at www.AdamsWedding.net.  Follow The Worldview on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

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

El nuevo PAN

Es Jueves heteroflexible y 'Alito' Moreno se sabe perfecto el apellido de Eduardo IniEstaaaaa. ¿Que le hubieran dado el Nobel de la paz a nuestro ex? Al menos eso dice Arturo Ávila, ¿ud qué opina? Noroñis se burla de las peticiones de la oposición contra Adán Augusto. ¿Han aplicado la de asolearse el 'siempre triste'? Facundo nos dice cómo le hace con su facundillo. Y Yuri nos cuenta de la que se salvó Yuri con LuisMi.

Leah, Melissa, and Kate are back in business, breaking down this term's first week of arguments at SCOTUS, including a challenge to Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors. Also covered: the indictment of New York's Attorney General Letitia James, the continuing legal fights against Trump's efforts to send the National Guard into Portland and Chicago, and Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi's pugnacious testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then, Kate and Leah speak with Yale Law Professor John Fabian Witt about his book The Radical Fund: How a Band of Visionaries and a Million Dollars Upended America, which chronicles how philanthropist Charles Garland bankrolled progressive causes through his American Fund for Public Service.If you want to learn more about Buck v. Bell (the 1927 case Justice Alito referenced in the Chiles arguments), listen to our deep dive from 2020Favorite things:Leah: Protest videos from Portland and Chicago; The Sentimental Garbage podcast on The Life of a ShowgirlKate: Writers & Lovers by Lily King, Creation Lake by Rachel Kushner; Red Clover Ranch in Wisconsin; wine and cider from Las MujeresMelissa: Vision & Justice; Miss Toy Poodle on InstagramLeah will be in conversation with UCLA Law Professor Rick Hasen at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Oct 14, 2025 at 7:30 PM. Details here. Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Cass Sunstein, Harvard professor and author of the new book On Liberalism: in Defense of Freedom, joins Offline to examine whether small-l "liberal" values like freedom, human rights, and the rule of law will be able to survive an illiberal president. Cass compares and contrasts what Trump and Vance are doing with the actions of the Bush and Reagan administrations, debates whether liberalism is a strong enough antidote to fascism, and reveals his #1 pop obsession.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast.    Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

0:00 MTG goes off on GOP over health insurance premiums ‘doubling!' Lindsey Granger | RISING 9:37 Jasmine Crockett bashes Trump for floating no federal worker backpay | RISING 18:17 Laura Loomer warns Trump not to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell | RISING 22:54 Trump threatens invoking Insurrection Act to deploy troops to US cities | RISING 32:27 Pam Bondi gets into fiery exchange with Adam Schiff over Tom Homan | RISING 42:08 Trump slams decision for Bad Bunny to headline Super Bowl halftime show | RISING 47:12 TPUSA's Andrew Kolvet confirms Charlie Kirk texts revealed by Candace Owens are real | RISING+ 57:18 Alito, Roberts air free speech concerns in so-called ‘conversion therapy' case | RISING+ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jueza blinda a marino “huachicolero”, mientras Rosa Icela promete cero impunidad; Layda Sansores expropia terrenos de cercanos a “Alito”; cierra gobierno de EU por desacuerdo en financiamiento

¡Feliz día internacional del podcast amiguis! Por cierto, gracias a todos ustedes que nos escuchan en este formato. ¿Qué onda con el nuevo nombre de 'Alito' Moreno? #LaPreguntaDeHoy: Amigues con relación estable, ¿creen que disfrutan más del setso que los soletros? Solteros, ¿qué opinan? Y Paty Navidad nos introduce al mundo de los Anunnakis y Anunacos.

Familiares de desaparecidos de Ayotzinapa protestan en Iguala, Guerrero Alito Moreno denuncia ante el FBI y la DEA a Adán Augusto López Trump demuestra su apoyo a la reelección de Milei en Argentina 

Family, this week on Queer News Anna DeShawn continues to bring you the stories that matter most to our community. In top news, The Okra Project Expands Nationwide with BetterHelp to Deliver Free Mental Health Care for Black Trans Communities. In politics, In a 6-3 vote the Supreme Court declined to immediately overrule a lower court's block on South Carolina's bathroom ban law, Texas A&M president steps down after upheaval over classroom video. In culture & entertainment, Jason Collins, the man who made history as the first openly gay player in the NBA, has been diagnosed with a brain tumor and Se7en Bites owner Trina Gregory turned 49 parking spots outside her restaurant into a dazzling rainbow in direct protest to Florida crackdown on rainbow crosswalks. Let's get into it.  Want to support this podcast?

The American Civil Liberties Union files a motion for an en banc re-hearing of Judge Boasberg's criminal contempt opinion after a three-judge panel stayed his ruling.Attorney General Pam Bondi continues her assault on the Department of Justice by sidelining career attorneys causing every member of the Sanctuary Cities Working Group to resign.The DC US Attorney's office fails to return indictments from federal grand juries as another judge lambasts federal prosecutors.CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard clash over her disclosure of an undercover officer's identity.Plus listener questions…Do you have questions for the pod?   Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

Alito conjuga lo peor del patriarcado: un “machín”, golpeador y sin convicciones: Mesa del Más AlláEnlace para apoyar vía Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/julioastilleroEnlace para hacer donaciones vía PayPal:https://www.paypal.me/julioastilleroCuenta para hacer transferencias a cuenta BBVA a nombre de Julio Hernández López: 1539408017CLABE: 012 320 01539408017 2Tienda:https://julioastillerotienda.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Mollie Hemingway, Editor-in-Chief at The Federalist, Fox News Contributor, and co-author of Justice on Trial, joined The Guy Benson Show today to preview her soon-to-be-released book Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution, which features exclusive access to sitting Supreme Court justices and those who know Justice Alito behind the scenes. She reacted to the anonymous attack on the Court from a dozen federal judges, warning about the pressure partisan members of the judiciary are attempting to exert on SCOTUS. Hemingway also pushed back on CNN and Democrats' fearmongering that Trump wants to "cancel elections," pointing out that it's Democrats who have shut down democracy themselves by canceling the DNC nomination process. Listen to the full interview below! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Alito, ejemplo en Campeche de cómo aplicar expropiación inmobiliaria: diputado UcánEnlace para apoyar vía Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/julioastilleroEnlace para hacer donaciones vía PayPal:https://www.paypal.me/julioastilleroCuenta para hacer transferencias a cuenta BBVA a nombre de Julio Hernández López: 1539408017CLABE: 012 320 01539408017 2Tienda:https://julioastillerotienda.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, we bring you the best of on Labor Day! Critics of President Trump's executive order on American flag burning have not read it and are misrepresenting it, as the order creates no new laws or offenses. It does not run counter to the 1989 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson. Unsurprisingly, most of the media jumped the gun and their favorite NeverTrumpers (among others) joined in the chorus, accusing the president of lawlessness, etc. Also, France's Emmanuel Macron is a disgusting quisling. He thinks it's still Vichy France, where he'd be more comfortable. Kudos to our Ambassador to France, Charles Kushner for calling out antisemitism in France. Also, CNN and similar media are biased against Supreme Court conservatives like Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Alito, who are accused of being "out of control" while upholding the Constitution in rulings favoring the Trump administration on issues like immigration and spending and DEI. Afterward, On Power explains that negative power, particularly its soft form, exists in both open and closed societies and is increasingly prevalent in democracies like America. It emphasizes that a universal order—encompassing nature, morality, values, and beliefs—precedes, transcends, and outlasts all governments, which are temporary human constructs imposing limits on individuals. Humans are not inherently subjects of rulers or governments but are governed by an unamendable supreme law. Valid governments must align with this universal order, while soft negative power persists in civil society (via laws, customs, or social contracts like Locke's) to maintain order, prevent anarchy, and protect individual liberty—even in the best governments. People vote for tyranny then when it takes hold it's too late - that's what will happen if Zohran Mamdani becomes Mayor of NYC. Later, the question media pundits keep asking: what is happening to the democrat party? What happened is that the people have learned a great deal about the Democrat Party and its ideologies over the years and they don't like it. Ideas do have consequences. Educating and reading remain crucial. Unfortunately, too many people with microphones and TV cameras have forgotten about this. Scholarship, history, philosophy still matter. They have always mattered. It's called getting back to basics. Getting back to our founding principles, beliefs, and values, and exposing those who seek to pervert, undermine, and destroy them. The Democrat Party is struggling and failing because it stands for virtually everything most Americans reject. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Mantienen guillotina sobre Alito, por delitos ajenos a agresión a NoroñaEnlace para apoyar vía Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/julioastilleroEnlace para hacer donaciones vía PayPal:https://www.paypal.me/julioastilleroCuenta para hacer transferencias a cuenta BBVA a nombre de Julio Hernández López: 1539408017CLABE: 012 320 01539408017 2Tienda:https://julioastillerotienda.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Un paseo a orillas del Sena y todas las fotos posibles en una Paris exuberante ECDQEMSD podcast episodio 6120 Oh Paris Paris! Conducen: El Pirata y El Sr. Lagartija https://canaltrans.com Noticias del Mundo: Golpes en el senado - Alito vs Noroña - PRI vs Morena - IA analfabeta - Aeropuerto de Miami - TikTok sigue - Pronóstico del Tiempo Historias Desintegradas: Los puentes de Paris - La boda china - Fotógrafa profesional - Secuestro de paisajes - Encuadre perfecto - Mamá se robó un jamón - Medicina India - Occidental y ayurveda - No pares de nadar - Mi hermana y mi orgullo - Frases motivacionales - Los cuentos de H.P. Lovecraft - Día internacional del videojuego - Los gamers - La gran Ingrid Bergman y más... En Caso De Que El Mundo Se Desintegre - Podcast no tiene publicidad, sponsors ni organizaciones que aporten para mantenerlo al aire. Solo el sistema cooperativo de los que aportan a través de las suscripciones hacen posible que todo esto siga siendo una realidad. Gracias Dragones Dorados!! NO AI: ECDQEMSD Podcast no utiliza ninguna inteligencia artificial de manera directa para su realización. Diseño, guionado, música, edición y voces son de  nuestra completa intervención humana.

La 4T se descompone… y Alito, también

* El pleito de Alito y Noroña se pasa a las redes sociales* Ejército reportó infiltración criminal en gobierno de Sinaloa* México pone otro candado a las importaciones de China

Follow along with slideshow visuals HERE. ENCORE ALERT! The Feminist Buzzkills are out on a summer break! But, no need to fear – we're leaving y'all with some extra brain juice to keep you company while we're offline. We're dropping an ENCORE POD EPISODE of when we collabed with the iconic “Boom! Lawyered” hosts Imani Gandy and Jess Pieklo IN DC and broke down SCOTUS' Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic arguments back in April. It went a little something like this… ATTENTION BUZZKILLAHSSSSS! WE DID A LIVE THING – in DC! Yep. Your “Feminist Buzzkills” joined forces with the “Boom! Lawyered” pod for an epic live show! After getting word that SCOTUS was hearing a case that could result in eliminating any healthcare provider from Medicaid payments if they provide abortion, we geared up for battle for one super-sized show with the amazing “Boom! Lawyered” hosts Imani Gandy (Rewire Editor-at-Large) and Jess Pieklo (Rewire Senior Vice President, Executive Editor.) We break down what this case means, and fill you in on all the outrageous tricks clown lawmakers across the country are playing trying to destroy access to reproductive care. It was a packed show full of rage and shenanigans and the DC crowd LOVED IT!  This episode unpacks the arguments in Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a case that could upend Medicaid beneficiaries ability to enforce their rights under the public benefit program all because conservatives hate abortion. We get into the history of efforts to kick Planned Parenthood out of the Medicaid program, the bad faith arguments made by conservatives to the Court as they try to do so again, and how a bad decision in the case could impact way more than access to abortion. Recorded LIVE at the Black Cat in DC, we gotta give a huge shout out and special thanks to the Black Cat crew for making the space for our loud asses AND for everyone who showed up! Tune in for the legal brilliance, the laughs, the knowledge, and some actions you can take to be the change you wanna see in this world.  Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  Scared? Got Questions about the continued assault on your reproductive rights? THE FBK LINES ARE OPEN! Just call or text (201) 574-7402, leave your questions or concerns, and Lizz and Moji will pick a few to address on the pod! OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: WE DID A THING EARLIER THIS MONTH! The Feminist Buzzkills took some big patriarchy-smashing heat to The Big Easy and recorded a live workshop that'll train you in coming for anti-abobo lawmakers, spotting and fighting against fake clinics, AND gears you up on how to support abortion patients and providers. We turned it into a podcast episode so you can listen to it HERE. P.S. You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our past Operation Save Abortion pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead IG: @LizzWinstead Bluesky: @LizzWinstead.bsky.socialMoji Alawode-El IG: @Mojilocks Bluesky: @Mojilocks.bsky.social CO-HOSTS:Imani Gandy IG: @angryblacklady / Bluesky: @angryblacklady.bsky.socialJessica Pieklo IG: @hegemommy / Bluesky: @hegemommy.bsky.social CO-HOST LINKS:Rewire News Group IG: @rewirenewsgroup / Bluesky: @rewirenewsgroup.comBoom! Lawyered NEWS DUMP:The Supreme Court Struggles With Whether to Wound Medicaid to Spite Planned ParenthoodAAF Pays Dr. Chuck Schumer a Visit AAF Pays Dr. Michelle Fischbach a VisitSeventeen States Attack HIPAA and Reproductive Health Privacy5 Takeaways From Tuesday's Elections, Including Bad News for Elon MuskWisconsin Voters Approve Constitutional Amendment to Enshrine Voter ID Law EPISODE LINKS:Operation Save AbortionOSA WORKSHOP: Start at 30:15 for the workshopExpose Fake ClinicsBUY AAF MERCH!EMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist SHOULD I BE SCARED? Text or call us with the abortion news that is scaring you: (201) 574-7402 FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK PodcastInstagram ~ @AbortionFrontBluesky ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFront TALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!

¿Habrá acuerdo de seguridad México - EE.UU.?; El periodismo que miente y se politiza; El boom Taylor Swift y Travis Kelce; La estrategia y entretelones del pleito Noroña – Alito

Javier Tejado, periodista y analista

EN VIVO EL PASQUÍN 399.6!!! Noroña vs Alito en función estelar, las cachetadas, los golpes, los gritos, el Mayo canta a medias, LATAM no se reproduce y mucho más en el único noticiero que es el mejor en el pueblo.ÚNETE AL PATREON DEL PASQUÍN Y VUELA!!! https://www.patreon.com/elpasquinLos conductores:EL SR. SANTO  @elsrsanto  https://twitter.com/elsrsanto El ciber: https://twitch.tv/elsrsantoEL SR. BÚHO  @mexqueunclub9602  https://twitter.com/mr_buho - https://www.facebook.com/mrbuho.pasquin/

#Videos | Rechazan violencia de priistas, “históricamente derrotados”// Alito y Moreira, reviranEnlace para apoyar vía Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/julioastilleroEnlace para hacer donaciones vía PayPal:https://www.paypal.me/julioastilleroCuenta para hacer transferencias a cuenta BBVA a nombre de Julio Hernández López: 1539408017CLABE: 012 320 01539408017 2Tienda:https://julioastillerotienda.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Las cosas explotaron en el Congreso el miércoles, luego de que el presidente del Senado, Gerardo Fernández Noroña, le negó la palabra a Alito Moreno, arrancando un pleito que escaló al grado de haber manotazos, jaloneos y golpes. Tras el escándalo, ambos salieron a dar su versión de los hechos y defender sus posturas. A pesar de los esfuerzos de Donald Trump para dar fin a la guerra entre Rusia y Ucrania, este jueves Moscú bombardeó Kyiv con casi 600 drones y más de 60 misiles. Además… Laura Itzel Castillo será la próxima presidenta del Senado; Luis Cardenas Palomino fue condenado a cinco años de prisión por torturar al hermano de Israel Vallarta; México y Brasil firmaron un acuerdo comercial; La gobernadora de la Reserva Federal de Estados Unidos presentó una demanda contra Donald Trump por intentar despedirla; Ariana Grande volverá a los escenarios con una nueva gira mundial; Y la tenista mexicana Renata Zarazúa se enfrentó ayer a la francesa Diane Parry en la segunda ronda del US Open.Y para #ElVasoMedioLleno… El US Open es el Grand Slam más pet friendly del mundo, al punto que tiene un servicio de chofer, chef, masajistas y básicamente concierge para los compañeros peludos de los tenistas.Para enterarte de más noticias como estas, síguenos en redes sociales. Estamos en todas las plataformas como @telokwento. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

El Duende narra el conflicto entre Alito y Noroña

* La pelea de Fernández Noroña y Alito Moreno en el Congreso* Cártel de Sinaloa no está acabado, dice García Harfuch* Correos de México suspende envíos a Estados Unidos

Gerardo Fernández Noroña, presidente del Senado de la República

Alejandro Moreno, senador y presidente nacional del PRI

Ricardo Raphael, Periodista y columnista

Claudio Flores, CEO de Altazor Intelligence

Dichos de Lilly Téllez o la agresión de Alito nos distraen de los temas importantes: Correa-CabreraEnlace para apoyar vía Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/julioastilleroEnlace para hacer donaciones vía PayPal:https://www.paypal.me/julioastilleroCuenta para hacer transferencias a cuenta BBVA a nombre de Julio Hernández López: 1539408017CLABE: 012 320 01539408017 2Tienda:https://julioastillerotienda.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dejó el PRI y se fue a MC. ¿Adán Augusto tuvo que ver en su decisión? ¿Se peleó con Alito? ¿Cómo va a votar?

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, critics of President Trump's executive order on American flag burning have not read it and are misrepresenting it, as the order creates no new laws or offenses. It does not run counter to the 1989 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson.  Unsurprisingly, most of the media jumped the gun, and their favorite NeverTrumpers (among others) joined in the chorus, accusing the president of lawlessness, etc. Also, France's Emmanuel Macron is a disgusting quisling. He thinks it's still Vichy France, where he'd be more comfortable.  Kudos to our Ambassador to France, Charles Kushner for calling out antisemitism in France.  Later, CNN and similar media are biased against Supreme Court conservatives like Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Alito, who are accused of being "out of control" while upholding the Constitution in rulings favoring the Trump administration on issues like immigration, spending, and DEI. Afterward, On Power explains that negative power, particularly its soft form, exists in both open and closed societies and is increasingly prevalent in democracies like America. It emphasizes that a universal order—encompassing nature, morality, values, and beliefs—precedes, transcends, and outlasts all governments, which are temporary human constructs imposing limits on individuals. Humans are not inherently subjects of rulers or governments but are governed by an unamendable supreme law. Valid governments must align with this universal order, while soft negative power persists in civil society (via laws, customs, or social contracts like Locke's) to maintain order, prevent anarchy, and protect individual liberty—even in the best governments. People vote for tyranny, then when it takes hold, it's too late   - that's what will happen if Zohran Mamdani becomes Mayor of NYC. Finally, Yael Eckstein, president of the International Fellowship of Christians (IFCJ) and Jews calls in. In Syria, partnering with the Israeli army, IFCJ has provided thousands of food packages and established medical clinics for targeted Christians and Druze. More recently in Suweida, they airlifted life-saving medical supplies and food to a hospital lacking essentials, saving lives from infections and hunger. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

【聊了什么】 在特朗普2.0时代，高院6比3的保守派多数已成定局。面对特朗普政府在行政权上的不断扩张和对司法独立底线的不断试探，高院是如何回应的？最高法院是美国民主的最后一道防线，还是行政权力的橡皮图章？ 本期节目中，我们与两位嘉宾复盘最高法院近期的关键判决，剖析其对美国政治与社会的深远影响。 播客文字稿（付费会员专享）：https://theamericanroulette.com/scotus-rulings-2025-transcript 【支持我们】 如果喜欢这期节目并希望支持我们将节目继续做下去： 也欢迎加入我们的会员计划： https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ 会员可以收到每周2-5封newsletter，可以加入会员社群，参加会员活动，并享受更多福利。 合作投稿邮箱：american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【时间轴】 03:05 高院年度盘点背景介绍：特朗普第二任期与6比3的保守派多数 05:26 批判“3-3-3”法院的说法 11:10 首席大法官罗伯茨的个人议程与困境 15:05 宪法、政策与司法审查：法院角色的理论探讨 21:27 Trump v. CASA 与出生公民权 41:01 “影子卷宗”(Shadow Docket)的兴起及其影响 46:41 影子卷宗案例：移民与行政权力案件 53:01 从高院判决看总统制与议会制的差异 64:43 LGBTQ权益与父母权利的冲突 72:48 阿里托的愤怒与杰克逊的“末日预言” 83:24 高院的未来：合法性危机与下任期展望 95:34 重新审视法院角色 【我们是谁】 美轮美换是一档深入探讨当今美国政治的中文播客。 我们的主播和嘉宾： Lokin：美国法学院毕业生，即将成为一名纽约诉讼律师 王浩岚：美国政治爱好者，岚目公众号主笔兼消息二道贩子 Nancy：普林斯顿大学政治学博士生，耶鲁法学院法律博士 品达：美国政治观察人士 【 What We Talked About】 In the era of Trump 2.0, a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court is a settled reality. How has the Court responded to the Trump administration's continuous expansion of executive power and its constant testing of the boundaries of judicial independence? Is the Supreme Court the last line of defense for American democracy, or a mere rubber stamp for executive authority? In this episode, we are joined by two guests to review the Supreme Court's recent key decisions and analyze their profound impact on American politics and society. Podcast Transcript (Paid Subscribers Only): https://theamericanroulette.com/scotus-rulings-2025-transcript 【Support Us】 If you like our show and want to support us, please consider the following: Join our membership program: https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/americanroulette Business Inquiries and fan mail: american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【Timeline】 03:05 Background for the Supreme Court's Year in Review: Trump's Second Term and the 6-3 Conservative Majority 05:26 Critiquing the "3-3-3" Court Theory 11:10 Chief Justice Roberts's Personal Agenda and Dilemmas 15:05 Constitution, Policy, and Judicial Review: A Theoretical Exploration of the Court's Role 21:27 Trump v. CASA and Birthright Citizenship 41:01 The Rise of the "Shadow Docket" and Its Impact 46:41 Shadow Docket Cases: Immigration and Executive Power 53:01 Presidential vs. Parliamentary Systems as Seen Through Supreme Court Rulings 64:43 The Conflict Between LGBTQ Rights and Parental Rights 72:48 Justice Alito's Anger and Justice Jackson's "Doomsday Prophecy" 83:24 The Future of the Supreme Court: Legitimacy Crisis and a Look Ahead to the Next Term 95:34 Reexamining the Role of the Court 【Who We Are】 The American Roulette is a podcast dedicated to helping the Chinese-speaking community understand fast-changing U.S. politics. Our Hosts and Guests: Lokin: U.S. law school student, incoming NY litigation lawyer 王浩岚 (Haolan Wang): American political enthusiast, chief writer at Lán Mù WeChat Official Account, and peddler of information Nancy：Princeton Politics PhD student, Yale Law School graduate Pinda：American political enthusiast 【The Links】 Trump v. CASA, Inc. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_2co3.pdf Mahmoud v. Taylor https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf A. A. R. P. v. Trump https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf Skrmetti v. United States https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf Trump v. Wilcox https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a966_1b8e.pdf KBJ's footnote 12 in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida https://abovethelaw.com/2025/06/neil-gorsuch-starts-some-supreme-court-drama-ketanji-brown-jackson-ends-it/ How the Transgender Rights Movement Bet on the Supreme Court and Lost https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/magazine/scotus-transgender-care-tennessee-skrmetti.html Sarah McBride on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-sarah-mcbride.html Lawless https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Lawless/Leah-Litman/9781668054628

We Like Shooting Episode 622 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries, Swampfox Optics, RMA Defense, XTech Tactical, Night Fision, and Mitchell Defense   Welcome to the We Like Shooting Show, episode 622! Our cast tonight is Jeremy Pozderac, Aaron Krieger, Nick Lynch, and me Shawn Herrin, welcome to the show!   GOALS   August 9th and 10th in Knoxville, Tennessee. Knoxville Convention Center Free to GOA members https://events.goa.org/goals/   If you were at GunCon and are attending GOALS. Don't forget to get some pics with the cast to claim your free shirt.   Guest: Jon Patton - The Gun Collective https://www.instagram.com/theguncollective/?hl=en @theguncollective   Gear Chat Nick - MP5 News Drop MP5 update Pew Deals   Bullet Points Shawn - Weekly P320 Updates P320 Weekly changes FFL NCIC gun lookup Gun Fights Step right up for "Gun Fights," the high-octane segment hosted by Nick Lynch, where our cast members go head-to-head in a game show-style showdown! Each contestant tries to prove their gun knowledge dominance. It's a wild ride of bids, bluffs, and banter—who will come out on top? Tune in to find out! WLS is Lifestyle GunCon Fun GunCon Aaron's Alley Justices are getting old, what needs to be done Clarence Thomas: 75  Samuel Alito: 73  Sonia Sotomayor: 69  John Roberts: 69  Elena Kagan: 63  Brett Kavanaugh: 58  Neil Gorsuch: 56  Ketanji Brown Jackson: 53  Amy Coney Barrett: 52 Going Ballistic Gun Rights: No ifs, ands, or buts Contrast this The Right to Bear Laughs With this Guns in the Capitol? Sure! New Proposal Would Permit Concealed Carry In Michigan State Capitol Building Silencer Showdown: ATF vs. Truth Why Silencer Shop Is Suing the ATF and DOJ Over the NFA Gun Control Hysteria: Here We Go Again That Evil AR-15 Again: Media Spins Rifles, Suppressors, and the Shane Tamura Shooting Reviews ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - EH EYE  “The only gun podcast that could survive the Dungeon.” Welcome to We Like Shooting, reimagined as if the hosts were thrown into the blood-soaked arenas of the Dungeon Crawler Carl universe and somehow made it funnier, louder, and deadlier.    Aaron steps into the shoes of Mordecai, always plotting and sometimes prepared. He has an opinion on everything, though nobody's really listening, and he probably carries a cursed artifact nobody wants to touch. Shawn is Carl, the reluctant, self important hero who's just trying to keep the podcast from collapsing under its own insanity plus, he loves walking around with no pants on. Nick perfectly fits Princess Donut, setting fashion trends for both guns and camouflage patterns that Shawn will obviously follow. He believes a rifle should both slay and match your entire loadout. Jeremy is Samantha, bringing pure chaos, carnage, and a voice so loud it could punch through walls. Also, his mouth is almost always open like a sex doll. And Savage1r is our Prepotente, the all-knowing, no-nonsense goat who drops stats and laws while silently judging everyone and laughing at his own jokes. Each episode is a wild mix of honest firearm talk, tactical insight, ridiculous banter, and just the right amount of madness. You'll get gear reviews, heated debates, political hot takes, and the kind of chemistry only a group this dysfunctional could create. If you want a podcast that's smart, unfiltered, and unapologetically fun, We Like Shooting might just be the only gun show crazy enough to survive the Dungeon and make you laugh the whole way through. It's smart. It's unhinged. It's the most fun you'll have while learning about firearms and the only podcast where a talking goat might bore you to death.   ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - from Lo Hung-Huang - Five stars Five stars, Wow he put five stars again.

OA1174 - Matt is coming in hot from the front lines of immigration court for an exclusive firsthand account of how a new secret memo directed to ICE's attorneys is trying to unilaterally redefine immigration reality and prime the machine for a new era of mass detention well beyond anything this country has even seen before. In better news: an actual federal judge restores sanity in the surprisingly-difficult-to-locate federal district of central California, and a footnote on why some unexpected federal job openings might be good news for people who hate fascism. “ICE declares millions of undocumented immigrants ineligible for bond,” Maria Sachetti and Carol Leonning, The Washington Post (7/15/25) (via MSN) Judge Maame Uwusi-Mensah Frimpong's findings and TRO against ICE in Perdomo v. Noem (7/11/25) Board of Immigration Appeals decision in Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 2025) Alito's majority decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018)  Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1172 - It's been two weeks since the Supreme Court decided that babies in only half of the US get to be born as citizens. We try to make sense of what they left behind in one of the most important shadow docket cases in history, and how concerned Samuel Alito should really be that the actual text of the 14th Amendment might still prevail in the end. Matt also considers how likely it is that Zohran Mamdani might lose his citizenship over his rap lyrics, and we wrap with a quick footnote combining two of our favorite things: bad AI in court and Mike Lindell. Trump v. CASA (6/27/25) Judge LaPlante's order certifying class in Barbara v. Trump (7/10/2025) DOJ memo re: priorities including denaturalization (6/11/2025)

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, we bring you the best of Mark Levin on the forth of July! There is this Marxist-Islamist movement infiltrating U.S. institutions, especially the Democratic Party. ‘On Power' is a unique educational tool on these threats and it explores the ideological threats of Marxism and Islamism to American liberty, rights, sovereignty, and faith. It delves into the historical, philosophical, and political contexts of these issues, contrasting the Judeo-Christian belief system with Marxist-Islamist ideologies. Also, David Trulio, President and CEO of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute calls in to announce Mark's ‘On Power' book signing, lecture and dinner on August 17, 2025 at the Reagan Library. Later, Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, is a Marxist and an Islamist who supports Hamas slogans, the BDS movement, and holds anti-Semitic views, though he reportedly denies these claims. If voted Mayor of NYC he will cause New York City's decline, with good people leaving and radical Islamists arriving.  Mamdani's positions, including his criticism of Israel and Marxist beliefs, are incompatible with American values and pose a threat to New York City, particularly given its large Jewish population. Mamdani's nomination reflects a broader strategy by Islamists to infiltrate American institutions. We need to confront these ideologies directly. Finally,  there were two big Supreme Court cases. In a 6-3 Supreme Court decision written by Justice Barrett, the court ruled against universal injunctions, asserting federal courts lack authority to broadly oversee the executive branch. Barrett's opinion emphasizes courts must stay within Congress-granted powers, preventing judicial overreach that could undermine the presidency and constitutional framework. Justice Jackson's dissent is radical. The ruling protects the democratic processes. In addition, there was a 6-3 decision written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who challenged the school board's policy of mandating LGBTQ and related curricula in elementary schools without informing parents or allowing them to opt out. This decision reinforces protections for religious freedom and parental authority. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Wednesday, July 2nd, 2025Today, JD Vance cast the tie breaking vote to pass the billionaire bailout bill which now heads back to the House for another vote, Donald Trump wants to use the espionage act against members of the media, a Reagan appointed judge says he will not tolerate retribution against witnesses in an upcoming trial about whether he will block the government from targeting student activists, a new study reveals that the elimination of USAID could result in 14M deaths over five years, an appeals court allows a previously detained researcher to remain free, Justice Alito takes pride in gay bashing from the bench, Mamdani is officially the winner of the NYC mayoral primary after ranked choice voting is tallied, and Allison delivers your Good News. Dana is out and about!Thank You, PacagenFor an extra 25% off your order and a special gift, head to Pacagen.com/DAILYBEANS.Good TroubleFollow Eliza Orlinshttps://www.facebook.com/reel/1146932684121163?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=eGuestsJoshua Aaronhttps://www.iceblock.app/John Moseshttps://massafghanalliance.org/ Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good Trouble Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, the Second Industrial Revolution unleashed American capitalism's potential, driving unprecedented economic growth and creating a prosperous middle class. Contrary to Marxist critiques, capitalism delivered widespread benefits through innovation, producing abundant food, housing, medical care, and modern conveniences like clean water and automobiles. These advancements raised life expectancy and living standards far beyond historical norms, showcasing capitalism's ability to foster prosperity and self-correction in open societies, unlike Marxist or autocratic systems. This is an answer to NYC Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani who said he doesn't support capitalism. When you understand capitalism it's very easy to defend.  Also, there were two big Supreme Court cases today. In a 6-3 Supreme Court decision written by Justice Barrett, the court ruled against universal injunctions, asserting federal courts lack authority to broadly oversee the executive branch. Barrett's opinion emphasizes courts must stay within Congress-granted powers, preventing judicial overreach that could undermine the presidency and constitutional framework. Justice Jackson's dissent is radical. The ruling protects the democratic processes. In addition, there was a 6-3 decision written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who challenged the school board's policy of mandating LGBTQ and related curricula in elementary schools without informing parents or allowing them to opt out. This decision reinforces protections for religious freedom and parental authority. Finally, Gianno Caldwell joins to talk about his new book, The Day My Brother Was Murdered: My Journey Through America's Violent Crime Crisis. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

Sarah Isgur and David French face the muddiness of a case on moving criminal aliens to South Sudan, the messiness of death penalty cases, and the potential abortion distortion of a plain ol' statutory question. Today's dessert, though, is analyzing an interview of Justice Samuel Alito by the Hoover Institution. The Agenda:—Mark Justice Clarence Thomas off your bingo card—Supreme Court's yellow light for moving criminal aliens to third-party countries—Gutierrez v. Saenz—Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic—Sarah's pet peeve: 18th century life expectancy stats—Chief + Gorsuch = criminal justice case—Alito time This episode is brought to you by Burford Capital, the leading global finance firm focused on law. Burford helps companies and law firms unlock the value of their legal assets. With a $7.2 billion portfolio and listings on the NYSE and LSE, Burford provides capital to finance high-value commercial litigation and arbitration—without adding cost, risk, or giving up control. Clients include Fortune 500 companies and Am Law 100 firms, who turn to Burford to pursue strong claims, manage legal costs, and accelerate recoveries. Learn more at burfordcapital.com/ao. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

OA1170 - This Rapid Response Friday it's Boh-vey (yes that is how you pronounce it, probably) all day--as in former Trump defense attorney and current Trump henchman Emil Bove, now up for a seat formerly occupied by Samuel Alito on the Third Circuit. Matt ties together several different stories from the news--from January 6th to the Eric Adams prosecution to DOJ's deportations in violation of court orders--together with this week's stunning 27-page account from deep inside the DOJ provided by a former loyalist. Finally, in today's footnote: a pro se plaintiff invents a completely new way for AI to be useless in the courtroom Government's Motion to Clarify in D.H.S.. v. D.V.D.:  (filed shortly after we recorded on 6/27/25) The U.S. Supreme Court's order in D.H.S. v. D.V.D. (6/23/25)  Day 1 of Emil Bove's confirmation hearing (6/25/26) Letter filed by Government Accountability Project on behalf of Erez Reuveni (6/25/25) Oral arguments before New York's First Appellate Division (3/26/25)(clip starts at 19:29) Federal magistrate Barbara Holmes's detention review decision in U.S. v. Kilmar Abrego Garcia (6/22/25)  

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, an Egyptian national, illegally in the U.S. allegedly attacked Jewish Americans, including a Holocaust survivor, in Boulder, Colorado.  The Biden administration's lax vetting and work permit issuance enabled this incident. How many people do we have like this in America? Immigration should benefit American citizens, who decide who enters and why. Immigrants must respect and contribute to the country or leave. It's not for importing Islamists, Marxists, criminals, spies, or anti-Semites.  Also, several questions come to mind on the published reports of an Iran deal. How do we know the Iranians will reveal all enrichment sites and enriched material to this consortium?  Will we have access to their country to inspect anywhere we wish?  Won't the Iranians play along for a few years and then, after the initial period and after the Trump presidency is over, thumb its nose at the world and breakout?  Later, Sen Ted Cruz calls in to discuss the Democrats and federal judges who hare undermining the Constitution and the rule of law. Democrats are supporting lawless rouge judges who issue nationwide injunctions to block the Trump administration's agenda. He also criticizes Democrats for hypocrisy, pointing to their silence when mobs protested at Supreme Court justices' homes and their attacks on justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Afterwards, Mark contrasts Alexander Hamilton's vision of a strong central government with Jefferson and Madison's preference for limited federal power and strong state authority. Hamilton's ideas, like a lifelong executive and senators, were rejected by most framers, who favored state-centric governance, as Madison emphasized in Federalist 45. Hamilton's support for implied powers (Federalist 33) appeals to modern advocates of activist government.  Finally, Miranda Devine calls in to discuss Anthony Bernal, Jill Biden's chief of staff, who played a role in concealing Joe Biden's cognitive decline during his presidency. Described as Jill's “work husband,” Bernal is portrayed as a powerful, behind-the-scenes figure who wielded enormous influence in the White House. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices