Podcasts about Kagan

Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner on the growing perception that SCOTUS rulings are based on politics, and a recap of last week's congressional testimony by Justices Coney Barrett and Kagan. Food policy analyst Corby Kummer with updates on the cyclospora outbreak, how one year of SNAP cuts are pressuring the food system, and why cheesemongers are having trouble selling cheese. We'll re-air Jim and Margery's conversation with author Rachel Hartigan, on her latest book "LOST" about Amelia Earhart.Spencer Buell, Globe reporter who covers Somerville and Cambridge, joins us to talk about the Shotspotter controversy in Cambridge, and how "social housing" is a growing tool to tackle the housing crisis. We ask listeners what their go-to free summer activities are as we reach the season's halfway point

Trump says he's preparing a "huge" announcement about elections, Congress erupts over DEI, and one viral hearing exchange leaves lawmakers speechless.In today's episode we break down Trump's latest election tease, the Jack Smith records controversy, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan's testimony on judicial security, ICE's decision to pause certain vehicle stops after deadly shootings, and the House vote to make Daylight Saving Time permanent.We also react to a Democratic Socialists of America co-chair calling for the Senate to be abolished, a heated exchange with a Haitian caller, MTG's reality show trailer, another controversial moment from The View, the latest DEI hearing, and a tense debate over "pregnant people" language during a congressional hearing.Plus, we discuss AI replacing doctors, Candace Owens' online drama, debunk conspiracy theories surrounding Charlie Kirk, and end with one of the most heartfelt viral clips you'll see all week.SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!Make the switch to cleaner energy with MudWtr today!  Go to https://MudWTR.com/Chicks and grab the starter kit — use code CHICKS and get 43% off.Put better beef on the grill this summer with Backyard Butchers.  Visit https://BackyardButchers.com/Chicks where code CHICKS auto-applies for 30% off first order + 2 free 10-oz ribeyes + free shipping!Lose Meaningful Weight and keep it off with Lean. Get started with 20% off and FREE rush shipping at https://TakeLean.com with promo code CHICKSContact Chapter today to see if you could be saving money on your Medicare coverage. Visit http://AskChapter.org/Chicks to find out now.Subscribe and stay tuned for new episodes every weekday!Follow us here for more daily clips, updates, and commentary:YoutubeFacebookInstagramTikTokXLocalsMore InfoWebsite

John Solomon, award-winning investigative journalist, founder of "Just The News," and the host of “Just the News, No Noise” on the Real America’s Voice networkTopic: DOJ records reveal Jack Smith received private texts from 44 lawmakers; Lindsey Graham's sister sworn in; Other news of the day Arthur Aidala, former Brooklyn Prosecutor, star criminal defense attorney, and host of "The Arthur Aidala Power Hour" weeknights at 6 p.m. on AM 970 The AnswerTopic: Justices Barrett and Kagan's testimony and the need for SCOTUS security Stephen Moore, "Joe Piscopo Show" Resident Scholar of Economics, Chairman of FreedomWorks Task Force on Economic Revival, former Trump economic adviser and the author of "The Trump Economic Miracle: And the Plan to Unleash Prosperity Again"Topic: Dealing with Iraq's new prime minister; Plastic grocery bag ban hurting businesses Cmdr. Kirk Lippold, Former Commanding Officer of the U.S. Navy destroyer USS ColeTopic: U.S. blockades Iranian ports Pastor Corey Brooks, founder and Senior Pastor of New Beginnings Church of Chicago and founder and CEO of Project H.O.O.D. Communities Development CorporationTopic: "Government racism has divided us for 250 years. It’s time to put an end to it" (Fox News op ed) Matthew "Whiz" Buckley, decorated former U.S. Navy F/A-18 Hornet pilot, TOP GUN graduate, and now the founder of the No Fallen Heroes FoundationTopic: Latest in the Iran warSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We picked two immigration decisions from the same day over the transgender-sports case because — Dan's protests notwithstanding — that's where the interesting law is. In Mullin v. Doe the Court lets the administration terminate temporary protected status for Haiti and Syria, holding the statute's no-judicial-review bar swallows the procedural challenges and that the equal-protection claim fails on the merits — with a genuinely odd move: skipping the jurisdictional question the way Steel Co. says you can't. In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado a fight about asylum-metering collapses onto a single preposition — whether a migrant stopped at the border “arrives in” the United States — and the majority says no. Along the way: brown M&Ms and Van Halen riders, whether Congress can strip review of constitutional claims without turning in a circle and sprinkling salt on the ground, Bolling v. Sharpe as a candidate for the worst decision ever, and why there's no White Somalia to run a controlled experiment.Highlights[00:00:28] Opening: hype music, and listening to your own podcast to get in the mood[00:01:42] Building a live-show rider with Claude Code, and the Van Halen brown-M&Ms test as a safety checklist[00:03:18] Blogging origin stories — GeoCities, Movable Type, the death of Google Reader, a ransomed domain[00:06:26] Why we date-stamp episodes; the “too many episodes” complaint[00:07:27] Today's slate: two June 25 immigration decisions, Mullin v. Doe and Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, chosen over the trans-sports case[00:10:37] A digression on the opinion's broken line spacing on page 1[00:12:11] Mullin v. Doe setup: TPS, the consultation-and-review procedures, and the “no judicial review of any determination” bar[00:19:07] Does the bar reach the procedures or just the bottom line? The Court says the whole thing[00:24:32] Can Congress strip review of constitutional claims — or must it first “turn in a circle and sprinkle salt on the ground”?[00:25:01] Dan on his and Alan Trammell's The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping[00:31:42] Steel Co. and jurisdiction-first — and the Court's strange skip of it on the interim docket, which costs it Gorsuch and Barrett on that Part[00:38:54] Why leave a hard jurisdictional question unwritten — the stare-decisis dodge and the “do you write on the shadow docket” dilemma[00:42:17] The multiply-the-probabilities problem (70% × 70%), by way of the Section 3 disqualification argument[00:44:04] The merits: Trump v. Hawaii redux, and Alito's very ginger, sanitized recounting of the President's statements about Haitians[00:48:21] Arlington Heights, race as a motivating factor, and the burden-shift the Court blends into one step[00:52:32] The Thomas concurrence: equal protection doesn't bind the federal government — Bolling v. Sharpe and Primus's Bolling Alone[00:59:27] The Kagan dissent: the review bar reaches only the bottom line, so the failure-to-consult claim survives[01:03:34] Why there's no perfect test case — no White Somalia — so the burden of proof is the ballgame[01:04:42] Mullin v. Al Otro Lado: metering, and whether a migrant stopped at the border “arrives in” the United States[01:08:31] IIRIRA swapped “arrives at” for “arrives in” — did changing the preposition change the meaning?[01:12:16] Dueling everyday-language examples: the running back, the mailbox, and Sotomayor's Penn Station / DCA / Golden Gate / movie-theater hypos[01:15:44] The Chicago Skyway's “Now arriving in Indiana” signs — “we say no thanks”[01:18:28] The dissent's practical stakes: perverse incentives to cross illegally, the SS St. Louis, and the Footnote 5 vs. Footnote 4 spat[01:20:51] Mootness and the voluntary-cessation exception; Jackson's advisory-opinion dissent and the Chatrie citation she just missed[01:24:13] The second Thomas concurrence: the § 1252 injunction bar (Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez) and an inherent Article II power to expel — “milling around”[01:26:18] The “an uniform rule” indefinite-article tangent; Conor Clarke on how we can't pronounce anything[01:28:06] Sign-off: Dan's two-week vacation, and thanks to the Constitutional Law Institute and SCOTUSblogRelevant linksCasesMullin v. Doe — slip opinion (No. 25-1083, consolidated with Trump v. Miot; TPS termination for Haiti and Syria)Mullin v. Al Otro Lado — slip opinion (No. 25-5; asylum metering and “arrives in the United States”)Commentary & articlesDaniel Epps & Alan M. Trammell, “The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping” (Columbia L. Rev. 2023) — the argument that jurisdiction stripping is a far weaker tool than advertisedRichard Primus, “Bolling Alone” (Columbia L. Rev. 2004) — after Bolling v. Sharpe, the Court has never actually invalidated federal discrimination against Black plaintiffs at the CourtHenry Monaghan, “Marbury and the Administrative State” (1983) — how a court “says what the law is” when the law tells it to defer

In Episode 212 of the Equipping ELLs podcast, Beth Vaucher opens the practical application series with the domain she believes has the single biggest impact on language acquisition — and the one most ELL classrooms are still not doing enough of. Not speaking in general. Not asking a question and hoping someone answers. Structured, intentional, daily speaking practice designed to work for every student at every language level in the room.Beth opens with something every ELL teacher will recognize — the moment you build speaking time into a lesson, give students a prompt, say "talk to your partner," and watch higher-level students carry the conversation while lower-level students nod along or wait for it to be over. She names the actual problem clearly: it was not the speaking practice that failed. It was the structure. And she lays down the foundational principle that runs through the entire episode: structure is not a limitation on speaking. It is the condition for speaking.For ELL students at Stages 1 through 3, the reason they do not speak is almost never that they have nothing to say. It is that they do not yet have the language to say it. Sentence frames, conversation cards, and talk moves give students the bridge from their idea to the English words to express it. That bridge — not the idea itself — is what structured speaking activities provide.Beth walks through five activities in depth. Sentence frame partner talk is the most versatile entry point — a four-step protocol that takes three to four minutes, can be used at any point in a lesson, and reaches every level through tiered frames. Beth adds two specific techniques that dramatically increase quality: whisper time before partner time, and deliberately varying partners rather than defaulting to whoever is sitting nearby.Think-pair-share with the ELL upgrade goes beyond the standard protocol by adding a sentence starter for the share-out — "My partner said blank and I agreed because" or "My partner said blank and I had a different idea because." This elevates the linguistic demand from repetition to paraphrasing and synthesizing, which is some of the most important academic language development possible.Numbered Heads Together — a Kagan cooperative learning structure — solves the accountability problem in partner and group talk. Every student gets a number, every student must be ready to share, and the discussion within the group prepares ELL students to share out with confidence rather than being cold-called. Paired with a share-out sentence frame it gives lower-level students the exact structure they need to participate in front of the class.Academic conversation cards shift speaking from answering questions to genuinely engaging with another person's ideas — building on, respectfully disagreeing, asking for clarification. Beth identifies this as one of the most overlooked and most important language functions for academic language development, noting that even adult learners need explicit structures to do this well.The five-minute daily speaking routine is Beth's highest-impact recommendation — not a specific activity but a consistent daily structure that starts every session the same way. A picture prompt on the board, a sentence frame, thirty seconds of whisper time, partner talk, and a brief share-out. Members of Equipping ELLs consistently report this routine as one of the biggest drivers of language growth because consistency compounds over time. Routine beats variety for language acquisition.FREE CHALLENGE: equippingells.com/challenge or DM CHALLENGE to @EquippingELLs. Includes speaking activity templates and over $100 in free resources.

This week, Marianna sits down with Isadora (Dory) Kagan, DNP, to talk about her experience completing NECA AETC's ACCESS program. Tune in to learn all about ACCESS and how it can help your work in the HIV care community. Explore the ACCESS Program here: https://www.necaaetc.org/access -- Help us track the number of listeners our episode gets by filling out this brief form!  (https://www.e2NECA.org/?r=AQX7941)--Want to chat? Email us at podcast@necaaetc.org with comments or ideas for new episodes. --Check out our free online courses: www.necaaetc.org/rise-courses--Download our HIV mobile apps:Google Play Store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=John+Faragon&hl=en_US&gl=US Apple App Store: https://apps.apple.com/us/developer/virologyed-consultants-llc/id1216837691 

After a quick check on the Nina Totenberg embargo kerfuffle and one more revelation from Justice Thomas's memoir, we devote the episode to Chatrie v. United States, the Court's first major Fourth Amendment decision in years. We trace how the geofence-warrant ruling builds on — and goes beyond — Katz, United States v. Jones, and Carpenter v. United States, and what's left of the third-party doctrine and the mosaic theory. Will explains the positive law model of the Fourth Amendment; Dan tries to claim Justice Gorsuch's separate opinion for his general-law approach. We close with the dissents, the advisory-opinion objection, and whether the Court should be saying more about the Fourth Amendment or less about everything. Along the way: Venmo heroin deals, smart microwaves, whether Will has genuinely forgotten his passcode, and a field-trip assignment for Chicagoland listeners.Highlights[00:00:21] Cold open: three recording sessions in three days, and the theories swirling around the Nina Totenberg screw-up[00:02:04] Justice Alito's embargo story: the press-room idea he liked until he learned they have to let the journalists out of the room[00:03:04] My Grandfather's Son follow-up: Justice Thomas's over-cautious marijuana confession[00:04:35] Cleanup-order watch: GVRs still owed in light of Slaughter, Landor, and B.P.J.[00:04:57] The main event: Chatrie v. United States, the geofence-warrant case — and why a 5-Justice Fourth Amendment majority is a good get for Justice Kagan[00:06:51] What a geofence actually is (there is no fence) and the three-step Google Location History protocol[00:13:52] General warrants, particularity, the University of Chicago backpacks hypo, and Ybarra v. Illinois — with a field-trip assignment to the Aurora Tap House[00:21:09] Three questions — search, reasonableness, exclusion — and the clever cert grant that fenced out the exclusionary rule[00:25:52] The setup: Jones and the two tracks of Fourth Amendment doctrine, step 0 (the third-party doctrine), then Carpenter[00:33:13] Will's positive law model of the Fourth Amendment, and Justice Gorsuch's Carpenter dissent[00:36:29] Orin Kerr's mosaic theory: "building out the mosaic Byzantine style, it starts to become searchier"[00:39:15] Kagan shuts the mosaic door: where the Fourth Amendment applies, it applies regardless of quantity — a fortiori from Carpenter[00:47:36] What survives of the third-party doctrine: Strava, public Venmo feeds, and the "For heroin" hypo[00:50:53] Why it's a big deal: the anti-mosaic holding, and a majority of Justices revealed as Carpenter people[00:54:48] Tangent: Face ID, the Fifth Amendment, Will's forgotten passcodes, and his enemies[00:56:55] Does the Stored Communications Act make all this academic?[00:58:34] The Jackson concurrence's particularity nudge, en banc remand practice, and Levy & Newman on unwritten circuit rules[01:00:43] The Gorsuch concurrence: papers, effects, property — Will disowns it and gives it to Dan's general-law approach[01:08:36] The Alito dissent: the advisory-opinion objection, footnote 4, the Davis carve-out, and the NRA v. Vullo precedent for a do-over remand[01:18:59] Justice Barrett's à-la-carte joins and her one-paragraph dissent — "we should have more dissents like this"[01:22:31] Two kinds of law professors, "The Supreme Court Flunks Trusts," and whether we're good on law[01:24:15] Sign-off: the rare promise of a schedule — a fourth recording session this weekRelevant linksCasesChatrie v. United States — slip opinionYbarra v. IllinoisUnited States v. JonesKatz v. United StatesSmith v. MarylandCarpenter v. United States — slip opinionFlorida v. JardinesDavis v. United StatesNRA v. VulloCommentary & articlesAmy Howe, "Court rules that law enforcement's use of 'geofence warrant' was a 'search'" (SCOTUSblog)Kate Shaw, Will Baude & Steve Vladeck, end-of-term Supreme Court roundtable (N.Y. Times, July 1, 2026) — the "hosannas" Will mentions on airWilliam Baude & James Y. Stern, "The Positive Law Model of the Fourth Amendment," 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1821 (2016)Danielle D'Onfro & Daniel Epps, "The Fourth Amendment and General Law," 132 Yale L.J. 910 (2023)Orin S. Kerr, "The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment," 111 Mich. L. Rev. 311 (2012)John H. Langbein, "The Supreme Court Flunks Trusts," 1990 Sup. Ct. Rev. 207OtherClarence Thomas, My Grandfather's Son (2007)Jon O. Newman & Marin K. Levy, Written and Unwritten: The Rules, Internal Procedures, and Customs of the United States Courts of Appeals (Cambridge 2024)

Este 4 de julio, Estados Unidos celebra los 250 años de su independencia. Una efeméride que suele contarse como una historia exclusivamente británica y estadounidense. Sin embargo, el nacimiento de Estados Unidos no puede entenderse sin la dimensión internacional del conflicto y, en particular, sin el papel desempeñado por España. Para desenterrar esta historia nos acompaña Richard Kagan, uno de los grandes hispanistas estadounidenses. Kagan es profesor emérito de la Universidad Johns Hopkins y autor de una extensa obra sobre la historia de España y sus relaciones con Estados Unidos,Escuchar audio

The big opinions are coming fast and furious as the Term ends. This episode, we take on two related cases from the penultimate opinion drop day: Trump v. Slaughter, which overrules Humphrey's Executor and clears away for-cause protection for the independent agencies, alongside its interim-docket companion Trump v. Cook, where the very same logic somehow spares the Federal Reserve. The big question: if the President can fire an FTC commissioner at will, what actually makes the Fed different — is "history" doing the work, or is the Court just saving the bond markets? Along the way: Heidegger's "always already," whether the metaphor of a living tree is consistent with originalism, a Goldilocks definition of "cause," the Chief leaning on his own unworkable precedents, the Ex parte Young mystery that keeps escaping the Court's grasp, and the first appearance of "the interim docket" in the U.S. Reports.Highlights[00:00:18] The penultimate opinion day — four down, four to go[00:00:50] The last-day pileup, and the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance case still pending[00:03:25] A confession: staircase wit, and the metaphor Will wishes he'd used[00:04:27] The living tree as an originalist — and the petrified-tree rejoinder[00:06:01] The new custom-cover workflow, and what Claude still isn't allowed to write[00:07:00] The day's four opinions: Cook, Slaughter, Chatrie, and Watson v. RNC[00:09:50] Is the Court strategic about opinion timing? A walk back through OT21's last days[00:13:55] Slaughter before Cook: the general rule before the exception[00:15:08] "Humphrey's Executor has always already been overruled" — by way of continental philosophy[00:17:36] Slaughter: the question, Humphrey's Executor, and the road from Morrison v. Olson through Seila Law[00:22:12] Why presidents mostly haven't tested removal — and whether this shifts the equilibrium[00:25:29] Walking the opinion: Roberts for the Court, the Thomas non-join, a Sotomayor (not Kagan) dissent[00:27:30] The Decision of 1789, the history fight, and the "good arguments on both sides" that made Will a "witless hack"[00:33:19] Part III-B's reserved questions and the Gorsuch concurrence's non-delegation wish list[00:43:06] Cook: procedurally on the interim docket, and why it comes out the other way[00:46:00] The Chief's history tour — the Bank of North America, Hamilton, and an accomplished yachtsman[00:49:00] The Fed as the "third bank"; Bamzai & Nielson and the monetary-vs-regulatory problem[00:50:25] The chain of moves: reviewability, a Goldilocks "cause," and the equity remedy[00:53:11] Footnote 2 and the Ex parte Young mystery — Armstrong, CASA, and Bivens[00:58:41] Process not received: a Truth Social post isn't enough, and what Cook gets next[01:00:54] "The interim docket" enters the U.S. Reports[01:01:52] The separate writings: Kavanaugh (save the economy), Jackson (equities), Thomas's solo dissent[01:04:45] Alito-Gorsuch and Barrett: hard questions, and skepticism of a carve-out defended "for secret reasons"[01:11:26] Sign-off: if there's a long delay before the next episode, it's because we've lost removal protectionRelevant linksCasesTrump v. Slaughter — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisTrump v. Cook — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisChatrie v. United States — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisWatson v. Republican National Committee — slip opinion · SCOTUSblog analysisCommentary & articlesAditya Bamzai & Aaron L. Nielson, "Article II and the Federal Reserve" — the leading qualified defense of Fed independence (Cornell L. Rev.)Samuel L. Bray, "Remedies in the Officer Removal Cases" — relied on by the Cook majority on the equity-remedy question (Journal of Legal Analysis); draft/announcement on the Divided Argument blogWilliam Baude, "How To Save The Federal Reserve" — Will's prior take on preserving Fed independence under the removal cases

We're in triage mode as the Court clears its end-of-term backlog. We run through the week's opinion dump before focusing on two cases that look unrelated but turn on the same question: when may a state rewrite background property law to limit a constitutional right? In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court strikes down Hawaii's rule requiring a property owner's express consent before a firearm may be carried onto otherwise-public premises. Then to Pung v. Isabella County, a takings case asking whether a homeowner whose property is sold for back taxes is owed only the sale proceeds or full fair-market value. Along the way: a theory about a Landor v. Louisiana flip, the week's run of 6-3 conservative wins, and a short detour into the perils of teaching Federal Courts.Key Topics[00:00:00] - Triage mode: recording June 25 amid the end-of-term opinion dump[00:01:29] - What's still outstanding — and the campaign-finance case's standing problem[00:03:56] - The Landor "flip" theory: did Justice Jackson lose the majority to Justice Gorsuch?[00:06:40] - Thursday's decisions: Monsanto v. Durnell (FIFRA), two immigration wins, Wolford v. Lopez[00:08:58] - Counting the week's seven 6-3 conservative wins; the Hemani surprise[00:12:57] - The throughline: when may a state redefine property to evade a constitutional right?[00:18:35] - Wolford v. Lopez: Hawaii's "express consent" gun rule after Bruen[00:20:42] - The Bruen framework — step one vs. step two, and the free-speech analogy[00:26:57] - The change vs. the outlier: uniformity and Hawaii's sensitive-places list[00:30:49] - Alito's historical analogues: poaching laws and the Black Codes[00:33:34] - Jackson's dissent: race, Equal Protection, and how non-mechanical Bruen really is[00:38:59] - Caetano, the Ramos v. Louisiana callback, and Alito on racist origins[00:41:21] - Barrett's concurrence, Kagan's narrower path, and the rejected "spirit of aloha"[00:48:23] - Pung v. Isabella County: tax sales, takings, and "just compensation"[00:51:45] - Thomas's historical turn on tax-sale rules, and the fairness backstop[00:55:45] - Sign-offRelevant LinksSupreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Divided Argument podcast: https://www.dividedargument.com/Transcripts: https://www.dividedargument.com/transcriptsCommentary blog: https://blog.dividedargument.com/Merchandise: https://store.dividedargument.com/New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdfTyler v. Hennepin County: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_q86b.pdfRamos v. Louisiana: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_j4el.pdf

2026 - 06 - 22 Kagan Ducker by CurtinFM 100.1 in Perth, Western Australia

10 Commonly Misunderstood Insurance Terms Explained Episode 389 – Sometimes people get confused by all the jargon used in the financial services industry. It's difficult to understand what you're buying—or what you already have—if you don't understand the language being used. Here is a quick listing of ten terms, commonly used in the life insurance industry, that you might not fully understand. More SML Planning Minute Podcast Episodes Transcript of Podcast Episode 389 Hello, this is Bill Rainaldi, with another edition of Security Mutual's SML Planning Minute. In today's episode: we explain 10 commonly misunderstood life insurance terms. Sometimes people get confused by all the jargon used in the financial services industry, and life insurance is no exception. It can be difficult to understand what you're buying—or what you already have—if you don't understand the language being used. Here is a quick listing of 10 terms, commonly used in the life insurance industry, that are helpful to have a basic understanding of: Underwriting. Before making any sort of offer to you, a life insurance company may need to evaluate your health. For example, life insurance companies generally check to see whether you are a tobacco user or not. A nonsmoker generally has a longer life expectancy than a smoker and thus will often qualify for a better rate and reduce the cost. On the other hand, smoker or not, if you're in particularly poor health, the company may not be able to offer you coverage at all. Beneficiary. Life insurance policies will usually list a beneficiary. That is the person—or entity—who receives the life insurance policy's death benefit if the insured dies. Note that any beneficiary designation under a life insurance policy is separate from beneficiary designations in your will. You could leave your entire estate to your children via your will, but if someone else is the beneficiary of your life insurance policy, that person receives the proceeds. The owner of the policy has the right to change the beneficiary (or beneficiaries) as their needs or desires change and it is recommended to review all of your beneficiaries annually or during any change to your planning strategy. Term Life Insurance. Term life insurance is the simplest form of life insurance. You will pay a premium that covers a specific term of years. 10, 20 or 30 years are common terms for one of these policies. If you die during the designated term, your beneficiary will receive the death benefit. It is generally used when you have a temporary need for insurance, such as paying off a mortgage or funding your child's college education if you're no longer there. Permanent Life Insurance. Unlike a term policy, permanent life insurance is designed to provide lifetime coverage. With most policies, as long as you pay your premiums, the policy stays in force for life, and the death benefit is guaranteed by the insurance company. It also usually provides a cash value. An example of permanent insurance is whole life insurance. Cash Value. With many permanent life insurance policies such as a whole life insurance policy, part of your premium pays the cost of the death benefit, and part of it goes into an account inside the policy and grows on a tax-deferred basis. As a policyowner, you have the right to access these funds if you wish via loans or withdrawals. The funds could potentially be used for major expenditures or cash emergencies if needed. Dividends. It's not just your stock portfolio that can pay dividends; your life insurance policy might do so as well. Life insurance dividends are usually associated with mutual life insurance companies such as Security Mutual Life. Dividends are distributed to policyholders from the insurer’s surplus earnings. They are not guaranteed. Grace Period. This is essentially an automatic safety net that exists on every life insurance policy. If you miss a premium payment, you generally have an extra 30 days past the due date before the policy lapses to pay your premium. And, if you die during the grace period, the full death benefit is payable, although there may be a deduction for any missed premium.[1] Paid-Up Additions. Paid-up additions are like miniature life insurance policies within a whole life insurance policy. Each paid-up addition adds a little bit of extra paid-up death benefit and guaranteed cash value to your policy without ongoing premium. Paid-up additions are often created through a whole life policy rider, although if you have a dividend-paying policy, you might be able to choose to take your dividends as paid-up additions. Since paid-up additions are fully paid up portions of death benefit, they can be surrendered for needed cash by the policyowner, or to pay the policy's premiums, if needed. Doing so will reduce the guaranteed cash value and death benefit.  Accelerated Death Benefit. This allows you to receive a portion of the death benefit while you are still living and is often made available as a rider assigned to specific circumstances such as chronic, critical or terminal illness. It is designed to help provide access to cash for medical bills, nursing care, or other costs associated with the qualifying event. If the advance payout from the life insurance policy is due to terminal illness, it is usually exempt from income taxes.[2],[3] In many circumstances, an accelerated death benefit rider is a simple add-on to a life insurance policy with no separate charge. And finally… Chronic Illness Rider. A chronic illness rider is a type of accelerated death benefit rider that gives you access to part of your death benefit while you are still alive. To take advantage of a chronic illness rider, you need to be certified by a doctor as someone who is ill and not expected to recover. In many cases you will be eligible if you are unable to perform at least two of the six “Activities of Daily Living,” or ADLs, without assistance. These include things like bathing, getting dressed, eating, etc.[4] All these terms can be very confusing. Some may be applicable to you; some may not. The good news is that, if you're contemplating a new life insurance policy, you don't need to go it alone. Your Security Mutual Life insurance agent can help. Your Security Mutual Life insurance agent can augment or help assemble your planning team. They'll coordinate with your attorney and tax professional to review your situation and to determine the insurance plan that will best suit your needs and objectives. [1] Ethos Life. “Understanding the Life Insurance Grace Period.” Ethos.com. https://www.ethos.com/life-insurance/life-insurance-grace-period/ (accessed June 4, 2026). [2] Kagan, Julia. “Understanding Accelerated Benefits in Life Insurance Policies.” Investopedia.com https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accelerated-benefits.asp (accessed June 4, 2026). [3] Stimpson, Jeff. “Form 1099-LTC Explained: Long-Term Care and Death Benefits.” https://www.investopedia.com/1099-ltc-form-what-to-know-about-the-1099-ltc-form-4781748 (accessed June 4, 2026). [4] Progressive Insurance. ”What is a life insurance critical or chronic illness rider?” Progressive.com. https://www.progressive.com/answers/critical-chronic-illness-rider/ (accessed June 4, 2026).   More SML Planning Minute Podcast Episodes This podcast is brought to you by Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, The Company That Cares®. The content provided is intended for educational and informational purposes only. Information is provided in good faith. However, the Company makes no representation or warranty of any kind regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information. The information presented is designed to provide general information regarding the subject matter covered. It is not to serve as legal, tax or other financial advice related to individual situations, because each individual's legal, tax and financial situation is different. Specific advice needs to be tailored to your situation. Therefore, please consult with your own attorney, tax professional and/or other advisors regarding your specific situation. To help reach your goals, you need a skilled professional by your side. Contact your local Security Mutual life insurance advisor today. As part of the planning process, he or she will coordinate with your other advisors as needed to help you achieve your financial goals and objectives. For more information, visit us at SMLNY.com/SMLPodcast. If you've enjoyed this podcast, tell your friends about it. And be sure to give us a five-star review. And check us out on LinkedIn, YouTube and Twitter. Thanks for listening, and we'll talk to you next time. Tax laws are complex and subject to change. The information presented is based on current interpretation of the laws. Neither Security Mutual nor its agents are permitted to provide tax or legal advice. The applicability of any strategy discussed is dependent upon the particular facts and circumstances. Results may vary, and products and services discussed may not be appropriate for all situations. Each person's needs, objectives and financial circumstances are different, and must be reviewed and analyzed independently. We encourage individuals to seek personalized advice from a qualified Security Mutual life insurance advisor regarding their personal needs, objectives, and financial circumstances. Insurance products are issued by Security Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Binghamton, New York. Product availability and features may vary by state.​ SubscribeApple PodcastsSpotifyAndroidPandoraby EmailTuneInDeezerRSSMore Subscribe Options

Should Conversion Therapy Be Protected Speech? What Chiles v. Salazar Means for Conversion Therapy Bans and the Future of the Profession In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that a therapist's talk therapy is protected speech, putting state conversion therapy bans at risk. Curt Widhalm, LMFT, and Katie Vernoy, LMFT break down what the March 31, 2026 decision actually says, what it does not say, and what it means for therapists who work with LGBTQ+ clients. The Court did not call conversion therapy safe, effective, or ethical, and it did not make the practice mandatory. It treated talk therapy as speech rather than regulable conduct, and sent Colorado's ban back to the lower courts for stricter First Amendment review. Curt and Katie walk through the strict scrutiny test at the center of the case, the Kagan and Sotomayor concurrence, and Justice Jackson's dissent, then sit with the harder question: what happens to the profession when the state can no longer set a guardrail on harmful practice before harm has occurred. Released during Pride Month, this is a candid, values-forward conversation about protecting LGBTQ+ clients and practicing affirming, anti-conversion-therapy care out loud. In this episode, we discuss: - What the Chiles v. Salazar ruling does, and does not, change about conversion therapy bans - Why the Court treated talk therapy as protected speech instead of medical treatment - How the strict scrutiny test decided the case - Where the concurrence and the dissent point the profession next - Concrete ways to signal affirming, anti-conversion-therapy care in your practice Full show notes and resources: mtsgpodcast.com Join the Modern Therapist Community Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/mtsgpodcast Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/therapyreimagined Modern Therapist's Survival Guide Creative Credits Voice Over by DW McCann: https://www.facebook.com/McCannDW/ Music by Crystal Grooms Mangano: https://groomsymusic.com/

durée : 01:29:02 - par : Aurélie Moreau - Vainqueur des Concours Sibelius (1965) et Bach de Leipzig (1968), le violoniste Oleg Kagan donne toute la mesure de son jeu virtuose en concerto, en duo avec Sviatoslav Richter, et avec la violoncelliste Natalia Gutman. Il s'est éteint à 43 ans. - équipe : Cécile Bonnet des Claustres, Benjamin Orgeret - invités : Aurélie Moreau Productrice Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

On this episode, Greg and Elina were joined by Amb. Edgard Kagan to discuss what the recent Trump-Xi summit means for Southeast Asia. Lauren and Japhet cover the latest, from Indonesian export controls to Luzon Economic Corridor updates.

This Day in Legal History: Rhode Island Ratifies the Constitution, 1790On this day in 1790, Rhode Island became the thirteenth and final original state to ratify the United States Constitution, doing so by a margin of 34 to 32 at a convention in Newport. Rhode Island's hesitation had been considerable: the state refused to send delegates to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, and twice rejected ratification in popular referenda — a curiously democratic method for refusing to join a constitutional union founded in part on the premise that pure direct democracy is dangerous. The state's small-farmer and debtor classes, the same constituencies that had backed the paper-money policies that horrified Madison, were deeply suspicious of a strong federal government that would constrain state-issued currency, ban impairment of debt contracts (Article I, Section 10), and override state-level debtor protections.Ratification finally came under the gun: Congress, frustrated by the foot-dragging, was openly threatening to treat Rhode Island as a foreign nation for tariff purposes, which would have devastated the Providence merchants. The convention's narrow margin reflected a hostile deal more than a meeting of constitutional minds.Importantly, Rhode Island's ratification was conditioned on a lengthy list of proposed amendments — many of them mirroring the Bill of Rights that James Madison had already shepherded through Congress in September 1789 and that would be ratified in December 1791. With Rhode Island in, the original Union was at last complete, and the practical question of whether the new federal government could function with one stubborn holdout fell away. The episode is a useful reminder that the constitutional founding was not so much a singular moment as a slow, contested, occasionally coerced bargain — one that ended in Newport on a humid Saturday in May.The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed down a narrow 5-4 ruling in Pitchford v. Cain, reviving a Mississippi death row inmate's challenge to the prosecutor's race-based use of peremptory strikes at his 2006 capital trial. Justice Kavanaugh, writing for a majority that included Chief Justice Roberts plus Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, held that the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied Batson v. Kentucky's three-step framework for challenges to peremptory strikes.The Court found the trial judge accepted the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations without giving defense counsel a meaningful opportunity to argue that those reasons were pretextual, and the state appellate court compounded the error by treating that omission as a waiver. The prosecutor, Doug Evans, used four of his twelve strikes to remove four of the five Black prospective jurors, leaving a jury of eleven white jurors and one Black juror in a Mississippi county that was then roughly 40 percent Black.The Court leaned heavily on its 2019 Flowers v. Mississippi decision, which involved the same prosecutor and the same trial judge and had already found Evans's pattern of striking Black jurors discriminatory. Federal habeas relief was appropriate because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's deferential “no fair-minded jurist could agree” standard cannot rescue a state-court ruling that simply skips Batson's third step. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Alito, Thomas, and Barrett, arguing the record showed counsel chose silence rather than being denied an opportunity. The case now returns to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings.Justices Revive Mississippi Death Row Inmate's Batson Claim | Law360Caesars Entertainment agreed Thursday to be acquired by Tilman Fertitta's privately-held Fertitta Entertainment in an all-cash deal valued at roughly $17.6 billion, including the assumption of approximately $11.9 billion of Caesars' outstanding debt. Shareholders will receive $31 per share, a 49 percent premium over Caesars' unaffected share price as of February 25, and the company will be delisted from Nasdaq upon closing. The agreement includes a go-shop period running through approximately July 11 — a Delaware deal-protection mechanism that lets the target board solicit competing bids without triggering a termination fee, and that helps insulate the sale process from a Revlon-flavored fiduciary-duty challenge by signaling the board actively tested the market after signing.Latham & Watkins and Skadden are representing Caesars (the latter on antitrust), White & Case is advising Fertitta, and Freshfields is counseling the Carano family, which holds a roughly 5 percent stake and will roll part of its equity into the combined entity. The combined company would control more than 60 casino resorts and over 200 retail sports betting locations under the William Hill brand. Antitrust review will be the inflection point given the overlap on the Las Vegas Strip — where Caesars operates eight properties — and across digital betting. Funding will come from Fertitta equity and committed debt financing arranged by a syndicate of ten banks.4 Firms Steer Fertitta's $17.6B Caesars Entertainment Buy | Law360The Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday finalized a long-awaited overhaul of the federal Independent Dispute Resolution process under the No Surprises Act of 2021, the statute that pulls most out-of-network billing fights out of the patient's hands and into a baseball-style arbitration between provider and payer. The headline change slashes the per-party administrative fee from $115 to $15 per case, undoing a sharp 2023 hike that providers had successfully challenged in the Eastern District of Texas as having been adopted without notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.The rule also expands batching, so economically similar items and services can be bundled into a single arbitration, which the agency says will cut transaction costs and ease the chronic IDR backlog. HHS is also rolling out a centralized federal dispute portal and a payer registry intended to fix the persistent problem of providers being unable to identify which entity is actually on the hook in any given case. Reactions from physician and radiology groups have been mixed, with broad support for the fee cut but lingering concern that the qualifying payment amount methodology — the benchmark arbitrators must consider — still tilts the field toward insurers. APA Section 706 challenges to portions of the earlier IDR framework remain pending in the Fifth Circuit.US HHS finalizes rule to streamline dispute resolution under No Surprises Act | ReutersABC's New York affiliate WABC-TV filed an objection with the FCC on Thursday, calling Chairman Brendan Carr's April order requiring early license renewals for all eight ABC-owned stations an “unconstitutional” act of viewpoint-based retaliation barred by the First Amendment. WABC submitted its renewal under protest, arguing the agency has not demanded simultaneous early renewals from a commonly owned station group in more than fifty years and that the Media Bureau's stated rationale — possible violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC's nondiscrimination rules — is pretext for punishing disfavored editorial speech.The doctrinal hook is the Bantam Books line of cases through last term's NRA v. Vullo, which holds that government officials cannot use the implicit threat of regulatory sanction to coerce private intermediaries into suppressing protected expression. The order followed a separate FCC inquiry into whether “The View” has been violating the agency's equal-time rule for political candidates, and came against the backdrop of repeated White House demands that Disney fire Jimmy Kimmel. Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez has openly urged Disney not to “flinch.”On the same day, the FCC issued a broader notice warning all broadcasters that licenses could be reviewed early if stations are deemed to be failing their statutory public-interest obligation — a posture that drops the question of broadcast licensing back into Red Lion-era First Amendment territory.FCC Targeting ABC Licenses To Punish Speech, Station Says | Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Kagan writes in The Atlantic that U.S. defeat in Iran war "is not only possible but likely." In this episode of The Brookings Current, Kagan is joined by Melanie Sisson and Michael O'Hanlon, also senior fellows in Foreign Policy, to discuss their latest thinking on the war, and whether it has weakened America's hand in the region. Show notes and transcript. Follow The Current and all Brookings podcasts on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Send feedback email to podcasts@brookings.edu.

In this episode of the ChinaPower Podcast, Ambassador Edgard Kagan joins us to unpack President Trump's recent summit with President Xi Jinping. He discusses the contrasting U.S. and Chinese readouts, Beijing's push for a “constructive relationship of strategic stability,” and the priorities of each side. The conversation examines China's role in Iran, Taiwan, and what to watch as Trump and Xi prepare for additional meetings later this year.  Ambassador Edgard Kagan is senior adviser and Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

Iran now controls the Strait of Hormuz. They have access to 30 of their 33 missile launching sites along the Persian Gulf coastline. They have tens of thousands of drones, mobile missile launchers moved inland, and have already struck a Qatari natural gas facility that will take years to repair. The American military umbrella that once protected Gulf State energy infrastructure has been exposed as ineffective. Hawk walks through Kagan's full argument, including what a post-American world order looks like when China and Russia emerge stronger, when Gulf States and European nations begin normalizing relations with Iran, and when America's weapons stockpiles are critically depleted after six weeks of nonstop bombing with no clear strategic objective from the start. Fox News analyst and retired Army General Jack Keane says the U.S. is preparing to return to full-scale combat operations. Trump has reportedly asked the intelligence community to assess what it would look like to simply declare victory and leave. The U.S. has also just rejected Iran's latest peace deal. The nuclear question is real. Israel has the Samson Option. Trump is backed into a corner. Neither Trump nor Netanyahu has shown restraint when losing. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

John welcomes Brookings Institution fellow and erstwhile neocon luminary Robert Kagan to discuss his buzzy recent piece in The Atlantic about the inevitability of American defeat in Iran. Kagan argues that the U.S. is not only losing the war now but has no plausible path to victory; that simply throwing in the towel is the least bad option available to Donald Trump, though its implications are beyond grim; and that the Trump-Xi Jinping summit in Beijing was a “ratification of the new reality” as to the relative power and prestige of their countries in the world today. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, an in-depth investigatory show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (5/13/26). As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant. !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");   Rumble("play", {"video":"v77q0ws","div":"rumble_v77q0ws"}); Source Links (In Chronological Order): Judge declares mistrial in Harvey Weinstein's rape retrial | AP News "You are the biggest fraud to ever sit in the U.S. Senate!" - YouTube Ghislaine Maxwell hinted at Epstein's ties to Trump officials – why wasn't she pressed for names? | Trump administration | The Guardian What The Hell Is Happening w/ Charlie Robinson (5/14/26) - The Last American Vagabond Gabbard CIA clip.mp4 DNI Denies CIA Raided Tulsi Gabbard's Office: What We Know - Newsweek (19) The Last American Vagabond on X: "Well isn't that convenient for an admin imploding in front of us. It was never incompetence and criminality guys, it was just more democrat hold-overs. Sure, why not. Those willing to ignore the obvious will jump at anything that helps them do just that. #TwoPartyIllusion" / X (19) Senator Ron Johnson on X: "Let me ask again, “who is running the deep state?”" / X Jesse Watters on X: "

Ghost opens episode 106 with the Senate hearing where Lindsey Graham attacks Pakistan as mediator, then cuts to Trump defending Pakistan's field marshal and prime minister in real time. Two landmark op-eds frame the hour: Robert Kagan's Atlantic piece declaring the Iran confrontation a strategic defeat for US-led hegemony, and Prince Turki al-Faisal's Arab News essay crediting MBS with quietly pulling the rug out from under the war's advocates. Ghost walks through reports of secret UAE and Saudi strikes on Iran, calling them psyops aimed at fracturing Muslim world unity. Israel's Starlink de-anonymizing tool surfaces as confirmation of Ghost's theory about Russian intelligence helping Iran identify Mossad and CIA protest operators. At home in Israel, the Haredi factions move to dissolve the Knesset after Netanyahu fails to deliver the Yeshiva draft exemption, with the IDF chief warning the military will collapse without 12,000 new recruits immediately. Smotrich says publicly the war must end with expanded Israeli borders. The World Jewish Congress governing board meeting closes the episode with Ronald Lauder calling for more aggressive hate speech prosecution and the Axel Springer CEO declaring Europe must become more Jewish.

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we examine a remarkable moment: the leading architect of the Project for a New American Century, Robert Kagan, admitting that the Iran crisis is a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions – and that America has effectively lost the war.**The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was the neoconservative think tank that shaped the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. Its vision was a unilateral American empire, able to fight and win two major wars simultaneously, with Iran at the top of its enemies list. But now, writing in *The Atlantic* – the house magazine of liberal interventionism – Kagan has declared that the Gulf War is unwinnable, that Iran has seized control of the Straits of Hormuz, and that the post-war American order is finished.What does it mean when the neocons themselves admit defeat? Kagan acknowledges that Iran has turned the straits from a passageway of free navigation into the world's most significant global pinch point. Iran will now decide which regimes can access Gulf shipping and which will be economically starved. America cannot project power into the Gulf; it has presented itself as an unreliable ally. The consequences for Taiwan, Japan, and other US partners are dire: they will not hesitate to break ties if a powerful regional predator comes calling.Kagan's only proposed alternative is a “massive generational land and air war” occupying Iran forever – an impossibility so absurd that it reveals the neocons' delusion. The Saudis, meanwhile, have concluded that the US and Israel are the aggressors, and that the entire attack was designed to drag them into a war with Iran. The eight-decade alliance forged by Franklin Roosevelt is now fraying. America is being expelled from the Gulf.This is the end of Pax Americana. Regional powers will now call the shots. Smaller nations will have to accommodate larger neighbours. And the neocons – after decades of advocating violent empire – have finally admitted that the project for a new American century is dead.**Topics covered:**- The Project for a New American Century (PNAC)- Robert Kagan's *Atlantic* article- Iran's control of the Straits of Hormuz- The end of American naval supremacy- Saudi Arabia's break with Washington- The collapse of Pax Americana- Neocon delusion and the impossibility of occupying Iran---*If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.*Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive ContentBecome a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory▸ Join the Community & Continue the ConversationFacebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcastSubstack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com▸ Read Articles & Go DeeperWebsite: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today's Supreme Court By: Sarah Isgur Published: 2026 416 Pages Briefly, what is this book about? A deep dive into the Roberts Court, with a historical framing of the Court as a whole. Two main themes run through the book.  First, while people want to evaluate the Court on the single axis of liberal vs. conservative, there is a second, perhaps more important axis that tracks the institutionalism of the justices—respect for precedent, maintaining the legitimacy of the Court, congressional deference, etc. Once you consider both axes, rather than a 6–3, Republican vs. Democratic Court, you get a 3–3–3 Court. Composed of (in Isgur's words): 1- The Deciders: Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett 2- The Conservative Honey Badgers: Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch 3- The Lonely Liberals: Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson Second, there's the idea of the Supreme Court as the Last Branch Standing, by which she means that it's the only branch of government that would be recognizable to the Founders. Which also means it's the one branch of government trying to hold a constitutional line. This is not a comment on Originalism or Textualism, this is a comment on the fact that the executive Branch has accumulated an enormous amount of power, while, conversely, the legislative branch does barely any legislation. As a consequence, much of what the Court does is designed as subtle encouragement for Congress to take back some of its power. What authorial biases should I be aware of?

Para entender a disputa entre Estados Unidos e China é preciso recuar até 1776. Essa é a tese de Pedro Costa Jr., editor de Geopolítica e Relações Internacionais do jornal GGN, doutor em Ciência Política pela Universidade de São Paulo e autor do recém-lançado Estados Unidos versus China, a luta pelo poder global, publicado pela Editora Escuta. Neste episódio, produzido em parceria com o Observatório Político dos Estados Unidos, Tatiana Teixeira, editora-chefe do OPEU, e Yasmin Reis, pesquisadora do OPEU e doutoranda em Relações Internacionais pelo Programa Interinstitucional Santiago Dantas, recebem Pedro para uma conversa que articula teoria do poder global, história de longa duração e conjuntura contemporânea. A entrevista atravessa o encontro secreto entre Henry Kissinger e Zhou Enlai em 1971, a histórica visita de Nixon a Mao Tse Tung em 1972, o trauma do Vietnã, a reforma e abertura conduzida por Deng Xiaoping, a entrada da China na Organização Mundial do Comércio em 2001, o pivô fracassado de Barack Obama para a Ásia e o consenso bipartidário em Washington em torno da contenção global da China. Pedro discute por que Washington despertou tarde demais para o que Giovanni Arrighi chamou de transferência da fábrica e do cofre do mundo do Atlântico para o Pacífico e o que a aliança sem limites entre China e Rússia, firmada vinte dias antes da invasão da Ucrânia, sinaliza sobre o fim da velha ordem mundial liberal. Aperte o play. Quer apoiar o Chutando a Escada? Acesse chutandoaescada.com.br/apoio Mande um café usando nossa chave PIX: perguntas@chutandoaescada.com.br Comentários, críticas, sugestões? Escreva pra gente em perguntas@chutandoaescada.com.br Participaram deste episódio: Tatiana Teixeira (OPEU), Yasmin Reis (OPEU; PPGRI Santiago Dantas), Pedro Costa Jr. (GGN; USP). Capa do episódio: FT Escute também no Spotify, no YouTube ou Apple Podcasts. Citados no episódio ANDERSON, Perry. “Balanço do neoliberalismo”. In: SADER, Emir; GENTILI, Pablo (orgs.). Pós-neoliberalismo: as políticas sociais e o Estado democrático. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1995. ARRIGHI, Giovanni. O longo século XX: dinheiro, poder e as origens do nosso tempo. Rio de Janeiro: Contraponto, 1996. ARRIGHI, Giovanni. Adam Smith em Pequim: origens e fundamentos do século XXI. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2008. ARRIGHI, Giovanni; SILVER, Beverly J. Caos e governabilidade no moderno sistema mundial. Rio de Janeiro: Contraponto, 2001. COSTA JR., Pedro. Estados Unidos versus China: a luta pelo poder global. São Paulo: Editora Escuta, 2025. FUKUYAMA, Francis. O fim da história e o último homem. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco, 1992. HOBSBAWM, Eric. Era dos extremos: o breve século XX (1914-1991). São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 1995. KAGAN, Robert. The World America Made. New York: Knopf, 2012. KISSINGER, Henry. Sobre a China. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2011. VELASCO E CRUZ, Sebastião C. Os Estados Unidos no desconcerto do mundo. São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 2010. WALLERSTEIN, Immanuel. O declínio do poder americano. Rio de Janeiro: Contraponto, 2004. Capítulos: 00:00 Introdução e apresentação do convidado 02:30 Por que os anos 1970 são o ponto nevrálgico da relação sino-americana 09:00 De fábrica a cérebro do mundo, a transferência geoeconômica para o Pacífico 17:00 A viagem secreta de Kissinger e o jantar com Mao Tse Tung 27:00 O atropelo diplomático, o tempo milenar do império do meio 40:00 A janela perdida, por que os Estados Unidos não pararam a China em 1989 55:00 O consenso bipartidário em Washington pela contenção da China 1:01:00 A aliança sem limites entre Pequim e Moscou e o fim da velha ordem liberal The post EUA x China: A luta pelo poder global appeared first on Chutando a Escada.

Chuck Todd surveys a dire geopolitical landscape where the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, fuel rationing has begun in many places around the globe, and the Trump administration is scrambling to extend a fragile ceasefire with Iran — sending JD Vance back to Pakistan for another round of talks, a move Chuck says signals genuine desperation to end a war that has become a generational foreign policy disaster. Heargues that Iran's control of the strait is now a greater deterrent than nuclear weapons ever were, that the Iranians know Trump is on the clock and that time is firmly on Tehran's side — meaning the best Trump can realistically hope for is a deal that looks remarkably like the Obama nuclear agreement he once shredded. Oil and stock markets appear divorced from reality while energy markets are in major distress, China's position has been strengthened enormously and Netanyahu has effectively suckered Trump into a mess that will define American foreign policy for a generation. He then unpacks a bombshell Atlantic report painting FBI Director Kash Patel as absent, unreliable, and allegedly drunk on the job — noting that just because it's a "hit piece" doesn't mean it's not true, that rank-and-file intelligence professionals don't trust the people leading their agencies, and that Patel himself believes he's about to be fired because Trump personally despises anecdotes about drinking. He closes with Virginia's redistricting referendum, which ends Tuesday and looks likely to pass, but he questions whether Democrats are making a smart investment — blowing enormous political capital and damaging Governor Abigail Spanberger's brand to pick up only two House seats, a tradeoff that may not be worth the cost. Then, Sarah Isgur — legal commentator, former DOJ spokesperson, and author of Last Branch Standing — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a comprehensive deep dive into the Supreme Court that challenges virtually everything the public thinks it knows about how the institution actually works. Isgur argues that the court's politics don't map neatly onto the current left-right spectrum, and that the court isn't really 6-3 but rather 3-3-3 — with a bloc of doctrinaire conservatives, a liberal minority, and a pragmatic center that includes Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts. She reveals that Elena Kagan plays a major behind-the-scenes role that the public rarely sees, and that over the past 20 years more than 90% of rulings have had a liberal justice in the majority (undermining the narrative of a runaway conservative court) The conversation turns to deeper structural concerns about the judiciary that Isgur argues are undermining the rule of law itself. She notes that today's justices all have eerily uniform résumés — a problem created by a system that essentially identifies future Supreme Court candidates by the time they're 18 and forces them to lead incredibly sheltered lives for both career and safety reasons — making them detached from the real world in ways that earlier, more varied courts were not. She is sharply critical of Congress for making the court the arbiter of fundamental rights, which has turned every confirmation into an existential battle — the refusal to take on issues like Roe legislatively forced them to the court, and now there's no real dialogue between the branches. They close by debating a provocative proposal: the confirmation threshold for justices should be raised to 60 or even 75 votes to force presidents to nominate consensus candidates, breaking the cycle of partisan warfare that has made the Federalist Society effectively a prerequisite for any aspiring conservative judge and turned the nomination process into something that is actively bad for both the court and the rule of law. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit America’s first war of choice: The Spanish American War. He also answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 04:00 We’re in a precious position. Strait of Hormuz closed & fuel rationing is coming 05:00 Expect some sort of extension of the current ceasefire agreement 05:45 JD Vance headed back to Pakistan for another round of talks 06:30 Sending Vance shows they’re serious about trying to end war 07:15 Trump is desperate to get out of the war 08:00 Control of Strait of Hormuz is a greater deterrent than nukes 09:00 Oil & stock markets seem divorced from reality 09:45 Energy markets are is major distress 10:45 Trump’s approval has slipped, public knows the war is going badly 11:30 Trump is talking tough, but his actions are cautious 12:30 Iranians know Trump is desperate and Iranians have serious leverage 14:00 Iranians know Trump is on the clock, and they have time on their side 14:30 China’s position has been strengthened by Iran war 15:45 U.S. is stretched too thin currently to defend Taiwan 17:00 Energy shock increases demand for clean energy, where China leads 18:15 Bibi suckered Trump into a generational foreign policy disaster 19:15 We’re likely stuck without a resolution to the war for awhile 20:15 Best Trump can hope for is redoing the Obama nuclear deal 21:30 Time is running out on the 60 day war powers resolution deadline 22:45 Trump has 5 weeks to get a deal before congress is forced to step in 23:30 Atlantic publishes story about Kash Patel being MIA & drunk 24:30 Patel denied everything, hoping for White House backup 25:30 Just because it’s a “hit piece” doesn’t mean it’s not true 26:15 People working at the FBI don’t trust the guy leading it 28:00 Atlantic paints a portrait of an FBI leader that’s completely unreliable 29:00 Patel’s ineptitude creates a national security threat to the U.S. 30:30 Rank & file intel professionals don’t trust the people in charge 31:45 Trump hates anecdotes about drinking, Patel’s days are numbered 32:30 Patel believes he’s going to be fired 34:00 Balloting for Virginia redistricting ends on Tuesday, looks like it will pass 34:30 Democrats expending political capital to only pick up two house seats 35:30 Redistricting fight has been terrible politically for Abigail Spanberger 38:00 New map will trim two very blue districts and export voters to swing districts 40:30 Blowing all this political capital for two seats doesn’t seem worth it 42:15 Livestream on Tuesday evening breaking down the results from VA 48:30 Sarah Isgur (Last Branch Standing) joins the Chuck ToddCast 50:15 The Supreme Court’s politics don’t map neatly to current left/right 51:30 Bono called Chuck a “radical centrist” 52:15 Brett Kavanaugh’s biggest regret was not getting selfie with Bono 54:00 Songs that best comment on American political culture 57:00 Incrimentalism more important than liberal/conservative 58:00 Kavanaugh & Kagan most similar to Chuck in philosophy 59:30 Kagan plays a major role on the court behind the scenes 1:00:30 The reputation of the solicitor general has changed under Trump 1:01:15 Earlier justices didn’t have the uniform resume of the current justices 1:03:00 Current justices are detached from the real world 1:04:15 Alito likely retiring this summer or next as Dems senate chances increase 1:05:15 White House is eager to get a Supreme Court opening 1:06:00 Trump may have his hands tied, Alito will want to approve successor 1:08:00 Alito will want someone like him to replace him 1:08:30 Unlikely Ted Cruz or Mike Lee will be nominated for the court 1:09:30 We’ve narrowed down who can be justices by the time candidates are 18 1:10:15 Justices have to lead an incredibly sheltered life for safety 1:12:15 The court isn’t really 6-3, it’s 3-3-3 1:14:15 Which justices are the most overtly political for their side? 1:15:30 Gorsuch had best opinion of the year on Trump’s tariffs 1:16:15 Congress has abdicated their duty, forced the court to legislate 1:17:15 There’s no dialogue between congress & court. Court gets final word 1:18:30 Congress didn’t have the guts to take on Roe, forced it to the court 1:20:15 Court has become the arbiter of rights, making confirmations existential 1:21:45 Rights of criminal defendants are compromised by an elected judiciary 1:22:45 Elections for judges create perverse incentive structures 1:24:15 Jackson & Kavanaugh share view of their role on the court 1:25:15 In past 20 years, over 90% of rulings had a liberal in the majority 1:27:00 Justice Thomas has been remarkably consistent in his rulings 1:29:00 Gorsuch consistently relies on the text and applies it 1:29:45 Thomas is a hardcore originalist 1:31:30 Chief Justice Roberts has eschewed any type of label 1:33:30 Kagan tries to keep the court out of issues unless they must intervene 1:34:45 Justices are taking fewer cases and writing more opinions than ever 1:35:45 The court speaks in too many voices now 1:37:30 Justice Alito’s favorite movie is “Being There” 1:38:45 Breyer was a 2nd backup choice for the court 1:40:30 The value of moderation vs. abstention 1:42:15 Should the confirmation threshold for justices be raised to 60 or 75? 1:45:00 Requirement to join the Federalist Society if you want to be a judge 1:46:00 Proposal for how to fix the confirmation wars 1:48:30 Current nomination process is bad for the court & rule of law 1:53:30 Court is last branch standing for now, haven’t seen result of 50 vote confirmation 1:56:30 Thoughts on Sarah Isgur’s proposal on SCOTUS confirmations 1:57:30 ToddCast Time Machine April 20th, 1898 - Spanish American War 1:59:00 U.S.S. Maine exploded in Havana harbor, conclusion was Spain did it 1:59:30 The facts didn’t lead to the conclusion, the conclusion came first 2:00:15 Hearst & Pulitzer were locked in a publishing war, competing for readers 2:01:00 William McKinley didn’t want war, but pressure kept building 2:02:00 It was a War of Choice, and the press pushed leaders into war 2:02:30 Congress demanded that Spain leave Cuba 2:03:30 U.S. begins blockage of Cuba, basically kicking off the war 2:04:15 Congress backdated their declaration of war 2:05:00 Teddy Roosevelt’s rise scared establishment Republicans 2:05:30 The war produced Roosevelt’s presidency 2:06:30 It was a war of choice, until it felt like there was no other option 2:07:00 Wars of choice never end well 2:07:30 Ask Chuck 2:07:45 As Trump’s support erodes, any chance the 25th amendment gets invoked? 2:11:30 Does Federalist 10 still hold up? Is there a case for a constitutional convention? 2:18:00 A Top 5 list of races where you think the election projections are off? 2:24:30 Did I hear a dog in the background in your Wednesday episode? 2:26:45 Can you bring on a late night host like Colbert, Oliver or Maher? 2:29:30 What can and can’t be done with the huge fundraising hauls Dems are getting? 2:36:30 Thoughts on the NBA playoffsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sarah Isgur — legal commentator, former DOJ spokesperson, and author of Last Branch Standing — joins the Chuck Toddcast for a comprehensive deep dive into the Supreme Court that challenges virtually everything the public thinks it knows about how the institution actually works. Isgur argues that the court's politics don't map neatly onto the current left-right spectrum, and that the court isn't really 6-3 but rather 3-3-3 — with a bloc of doctrinaire conservatives, a liberal minority, and a pragmatic center that includes Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts. She reveals that Elena Kagan plays a major behind-the-scenes role that the public rarely sees, and that over the past 20 years more than 90% of rulings have had a liberal justice in the majority (undermining the narrative of a runaway conservative court) The conversation turns to deeper structural concerns about the judiciary that Isgur argues are undermining the rule of law itself. She notes that today's justices all have eerily uniform résumés — a problem created by a system that essentially identifies future Supreme Court candidates by the time they're 18 and forces them to lead incredibly sheltered lives for both career and safety reasons — making them detached from the real world in ways that earlier, more varied courts were not. She is sharply critical of Congress for making the court the arbiter of fundamental rights, which has turned every confirmation into an existential battle — the refusal to take on issues like Roe legislatively forced them to the court, and now there's no real dialogue between the branches. They close by debating a provocative proposal: the confirmation threshold for justices should be raised to 60 or even 75 votes to force presidents to nominate consensus candidates, breaking the cycle of partisan warfare that has made the Federalist Society effectively a prerequisite for any aspiring conservative judge and turned the nomination process into something that is actively bad for both the court and the rule of law. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Link in bio or go to https://getsoul.com & enter code TODDCAST for 30% off your first order. Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Sarah Isgur (Last Branch Standing) joins the Chuck ToddCast 01:45 The Supreme Court’s politics don’t map neatly to current left/right 03:00 Bono called Chuck a “radical centrist” 03:45 Brett Kavanaugh’s biggest regret was not getting selfie with Bono 05:30 Songs that best comment on American political culture 08:30 Incrimentalism more important than liberal/conservative 09:30 Kavanaugh & Kagan most similar to Chuck in philosophy 11:00 Kagan plays a major role on the court behind the scenes 12:00 The reputation of the solicitor general has changed under Trump 12:45 Earlier justices didn’t have the uniform resume of the current justices 14:30 Current justices are detached from the real world 15:45 Alito likely retiring this summer or next as Dems senate chances increase 16:45 White House is eager to get a Supreme Court opening 17:30 Trump may have his hands tied, Alito will want to approve successor 19:30 Alito will want someone like him to replace him 20:00 Unlikely Ted Cruz or Mike Lee will be nominated for the court 21:00 We’ve narrowed down who can be justices by the time candidates are 18 21:45 Justices have to lead an incredibly sheltered life for safety 23:45 The court isn’t really 6-3, it’s 3-3-3 25:45 Which justices are the most overtly political for their side? 27:00 Gorsuch had best opinion of the year on Trump’s tariffs 27:45 Congress has abdicated their duty, forced the court to legislate 28:45 There’s no dialogue between congress & court. Court gets final word 30:00 Congress didn’t have the guts to take on Roe, forced it to the court 31:45 Court has become the arbiter of rights, making confirmations existential 33:15 Rights of criminal defendants are compromised by an elected judiciary 34:15 Elections for judges create perverse incentive structures 35:45 Jackson & Kavanaugh share view of their role on the court 36:45 In past 20 years, over 90% of rulings had a liberal in the majority 38:30 Justice Thomas has been remarkably consistent in his rulings 40:30 Gorsuch consistently relies on the text and applies it 41:15 Thomas is a hardcore originalist 43:00 Chief Justice Roberts has eschewed any type of label 45:00 Kagan tries to keep the court out of issues unless they must intervene 46:15 Justices are taking fewer cases and writing more opinions than ever 47:15 The court speaks in too many voices now 49:00 Justice Alito’s favorite movie is “Being There” 50:15 Breyer was a 2nd backup choice for the court 52:00 The value of moderation vs. abstention 53:45 Should the confirmation threshold for justices be raised to 60 or 75? 56:30 Requirement to join the Federalist Society if you want to be a judge 57:30 Proposal for how to fix the confirmation wars 1:00:00 Current nomination process is bad for the court & rule of law 1:05:00 Court is last branch standing for now, haven’t seen result of 50 vote confirmationSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Subscribe to Inside Call me Back to listen to our 3-part series with Ronen Bergman ____ Subscribe to Ark News Daily ____ Is the war heading towards a ground assault or a push for a deal? To explore out the possibilities, Dan is joined by Ark Media contributor Nadav Eyal and Fred Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. In this episode: - Two Tracks, One War: Escalation vs. Diplomacy - Inside the Air Campaign: What's Been Degraded—and What Hasn't - Iran's Mindset: Why Tehran Thinks It's Winning - The Strait of Hormuz: Leverage, Illusion, or Real Control? - Diplomacy During War: Contradiction or Strategy? - What a U.S. Ground Operation Could Look Like - Energy, Escalation, and Regional Spillover Risks - Endgames: Deal, Deterrence, or Something Bigger? More Ark Media: Want to join Ark Media? Check out our careers page for new openings. Explore Israel Votes Listen to For Heaven's Sake Listen to What's Your Number? Watch Call me Back on YouTube Newsletters | Ark Media | Amit Segal | Nadav Eyal Instagram | Ark Media | Dan X | Dan Dan Senor & Saul Singer's book, The Genius of Israel Get in touch Credits: Ilan Benatar, Adaam James Levin-Areddy, Brittany Cohen, Ava Weiner, Martin Huergo, Mariangeles Burgos, and Patricio Spadavecchia, Yuval Semo

Is the war heading towards a ground assault or a push for a deal? To explore the possibilities, Dan is joined by Ark Media contributor Nadav Eyal and Fred Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. In this episode: – Two Tracks, One War: Escalation vs. Diplomacy – Inside the […]

Even before Trump started raining bombs down on Iran, harassing allies to clean up his mess, and yanking sanctions off Russia, the global order that kept Americans safe for generations was in shambles. Historian and foreign policy expert Robert Kagan discusses his landmark article explaining how Trump broke the “Grand Bargain” that promoted peace and prosperity after World War II. The crucial question now—according to Kagan—is not whether that order is coming back, but what will replace it. Mentioned in this episode: Kagan's article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/03/trump-national-security-greenland-spheres-of-interest/685673/ Kagan's latest book: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/714679/rebellion-by-robert-kagan/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What happens when two of the biggest life transitions collide at exactly the same time? For grief coach Sarah Kagan, that meant losing her mother at six months pregnant and learning to live through loss while preparing to bring a new life into the world.Sarah is a mother to two young kids, a former corporate professional who walked away from her career to follow a calling, and someone who is building a platform to change the way we talk about grief, especially in the workplace.In this conversation, Ashley and Sarah dig into what it really means to grieve in real time, why the pressure to “be strong” is one of the most isolating things we do to each other, and what it looks like to hold loss and love at the same time, without having to choose between them.In This EpisodeWhat it means to be a “motherless mother” and why grief hits differently once you're a parentThe moment at her mother's Shiva that taught Sarah everything about how we avoid griefWhy “you're so brave” and “at least she's not suffering” do more harm than goodThe martyrdom trap — and how stepping out of it changed everything for SarahThe statistic that 51% of people leave their jobs within a year of a major lossHow Sarah rebuilt her work life after leaving corporate — no 9-to-5, Wednesdays for arts and crafts, out by 4pmWhy grief needs a better spokesperson (and what menopause got right)The problem with bereavement leave policies that tell you who you're allowed to mournAshley opens up about losing her father to suicide and the shame layered on top of certain kinds of lossHow to slow down after caregiving — and why your body will eventually make youSarah's grief workbook and creative morning kits: where does the love go when someone dies?Quotes From This Episode“There's so much pressure to cover up or perform or just show up and be like, yeah, I'm fine. But it is a big deal and you need someone else to validate that experience for you.” — Sarah Kagan“Trying to put a period on something that's an ellipsis.” — Sarah Kagan, on toxic positivity around grief“No one helps you speed up. They just throw it at you and you do it." — Ashley BlackingtonConnect with SarahFind Sarah on LinkedIn: Sarah KaganWebsite: keriahcoaching.comInstagram: @griefcoachsarahConnect with Ashley:Website: https://www.ashleyblackington.comPodcast website: https://www.andbothpodcast.com/Dovetail® App: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/dovetail-app/id6744341822Instagram: @mydovetail.appLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleyblackington/

Nearly 600 women gathered at the Sonesta White Plains Downtown on March 13th, 2026 for the annual Westchester Women's Summit, the largest celebration of Women's History Month in Westchester County. The inspiring day brought together entrepreneurs, leaders, and changemakers for powerful conversations and meaningful connections. Attendees heard from keynote speaker Hoda Kotb - New York Times bestselling author, award-winning journalist, and Founder & CEO of Joy 101 - along with News 12's Tara Rosenblum. From insightful discussions to uplifting moments, the summit was a reminder of the strength, resilience, and impact of women across our community.Host Andrew Castellano from Westchester Talk Radio was on hand.This episode features an insightful interview with Erica Healey, a distinguished employment lawyer and Managing Partner at Filippatos Law, PLLC. Erica shares her professional journey, starting from a surprising pivot in her career aspirations - from medicine to law. She emphasizes that because work is such a significant part of our lives, a positive or negative environment can profoundly impact one's overall well-being. Erica also highlights the importance of being active in the community to build trust with potential clients before they are in a time of need.

 The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling clarifying when federal contractors can appeal court decisions in lawsuits tied to government work, while Justice Samuel Alito cautioned that part of the majority's reasoning was "oversimplified." The case, Geo Group, Inc. v. Alejandro Menocal, centers on whether contractors working with the federal government can immediately appeal a district court decision rejecting a legal protection known as the Yearsley defense. Kagan wrote that the case addressed "whether a contractor may take an immediate appeal of a district court's pretrial order denying Yearsley protection," concluding that the answer is "no" because Yearsley provides a "defense to liability, not an immunity from suit." Instead, it clarifies that federal contractors must wait until a case concludes before appealing a court's rejection of the Yearsley defense -- potentially shaping litigation involving companies that carry out government functions.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Subscribe here to Inside Call me Back ------- Please take 5 minutes to fill out Ark Media's LISTENER SURVEY ____ Could a buried stockpile of uranium decide the outcome of the war with Iran? Dan is joined by Israeli journalist Amit Segal and military historian Fred Kagan to unpack reports that roughly 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% may still be recoverable from a bombed Iranian nuclear site. They discuss why that level of enrichment matters, what it would take for U.S. or Israeli forces to extract the material, and why the race to secure it could shape the next phase of the war. The conversation also explores the broader campaign against the Iranian regime, the possibility of regime change, renewed Hezbollah attacks in northern Israel, and what Iran might look like if the current leadership collapses. In this episode: - The race to secure Iran's buried 60% enriched uranium - Why 60% enrichment puts Iran close to nuclear weapons capability - What it would take for U.S. or Israeli forces to extract the material - The broader military campaign against Iran's regime infrastructure - Netanyahu's “surprises” and the strategy to destabilize the regime - Hezbollah's renewed attacks on northern Israel - The rise of Mojtaba Khamenei and what it means for the regime - Could regime change in Iran trigger a civil war? Learn more about AEI's Critical Threats Project.  Learn more about the Institute for the Study of War. More Ark Media: Want to join Ark Media? Check out our careers page for new openings. Explore Israel Votes Listen to For Heaven's Sake Listen to What's Your Number? Watch Call me Back on YouTube Newsletters | Ark Media | Amit Segal | Nadav Eyal Instagram | Ark Media | Dan X | Dan Dan Senor & Saul Singer's book, The Genius of Israel Get in touch Credits: Ilan Benatar, Adaam James Levin-Areddy, Brittany Cohen, Ava Weiner, Martin Huergo, Mariangeles Burgos, and Patricio Spadavecchia, Yuval Semo

Could a buried stockpile of uranium decide the outcome of the war with Iran? Dan is joined by Israeli journalist Amit Segal and military historian Fred Kagan to unpack reports that roughly 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% may still be recoverable from a bombed Iranian nuclear site. They discuss why that level of […]

“Le Chat Noir” is one of the most famous pieces of late 19th century European art, but the artist behind it was also very active in France's anarchist and socialist political groups of the time. Research: Asimakis, Magdalyn. “War, Socialism, and Cats: Théophile-Alexandre Steinlen's Political Artistic Practice.” The Met. Nov. 2, 2017. https://www.metmuseum.org/perspectives/theophile-alexandre-steinlen-cats-socialism-world-war-i Budge, A. “Arts & Decoration Combined with the Spur.” Volumes 19-20. 1923. Accessed online: https://books.google.com/books?id=joAyAQAAIAAJ&vq=steinlen&source=gbs_navlinks_s “Charles Matlack Price letters 1917-1947 [bulk 1918-1923].” The New York Public Library – Archives and Manuscripts. https://archives.nypl.org/mss/18567#:~:text=His%20career%20trajectory%20was%20briefly,to%20friends%2C%20and%20his%20work “Declaration of the Rights of Man – 1789.” Yale Law School. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp Fau-Vincenti, Véronique. “STEINLEN Théophile, Alexandre.” Le Maitron. Nov. 4, 2009. https://maitron.fr/steinlen-theophile-alexandre/ Gegout, E. and Ch. Malato. “Prison fin de siècle : souvenirs de Pélagie.” Paris. G. Charpentier et E. Fasquelle. 1891. https://digital-research-books-beta.nypl.org/read/7581051 Glass, Chloe. “Printmaker Theophile Steinlen Used Art to Advocate for Social Change in 1900s France.” Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art. https://crystalbridges.org/blog/printmaker-theophile-steinlen-used-art-to-advocate-for-social-change-in-1900s-france/ Goldstein, Robert Justin. “Fighting French Censorship, 1815-1881.” The French Review, vol. 71, no. 5, 1998, pp. 785–96. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/398913 Guthrie, Christopher E. “History of Censorship in France.” EBSCO. 2023. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/history-censorship-france Kagan, Étienne, et al. “GEGOUT Ernest.”Le Maitron. April 7, 2014. https://maitron.fr/gegout-ernest-charles-joseph-ernest-dit-dictionnaire-des-anarchistes Olsen, Annikka. “The Surprising Story of the Cat-Obsessed Artist Behind the Famed ‘Le Chat Noir’ Poster.” Artnet News. Oct. 28, 2024. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/theophile-alexandre-steinlen-tournee-du-chat-noir-2417712?amp=1 Stefiuk, Eleanor. 2022. “Villiers de L’Isle-Adam’s Anarchism: A Legacy of the Paris Commune.” Dix-Neuf26 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/14787318.2021.2010167 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Fred Kagan, senior fellow and director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute, joins the show to discuss the war, what Ukraine can do to help the Gulf with drone defense, and the future of the Islamic Republic. ▪️ 01:51 Updates 03:29 Iranian strikes  09:15 Munitions crisis     14:28 Innovation 18:45 Isolated and weak 25:12 Arming the opposition 30:55 A dangerous game  36:22 10/7  40:21 Turkey Follow along on Instagram, X @schoolofwarpod, and YouTube @SchoolofWarPodcast Find more content on our School of War Substack

The start of Lent 2026 and how it can bring us closer to God

Yesterday marked the fourth anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Four years of war in which Russian forces have occupied roughly one and a half percent of Ukraine's territory at the cost of approximately half a million lives. Our guest, Frederick W. Kagan, and his team at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) and the Critical Threats Project (CTP) assess that Russia's strategy is to win at the negotiating table what it cannot seize on the battlefield. Putin's theory of victory rests on the assumption that Russian forces will continue grinding forward indefinitely, regardless of the cost, and that he will be able to persuade the West to abandon Ukraine, ultimately forcing Kyiv to concede more than it already has. Successful negotiation requires changing Putin's calculus. Over the past four years, Ukrainians have made their position unmistakably clear: “We would rather die than be part of Russia.” So, what will drive this tipping point toward peace? Would a global inflection point against malign actors and axis partners change Putin's negotiating position? And what security guarantees from the West would be sufficient to sustain this hypothetical peace? Frederick W. Kagan is a senior fellow and the director of the Critical Threats Project (CTP) at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). He edits CTP's and the Institute for the Study of War's (ISW) daily updates on Russia's invasion of Ukraine. He was previously an associate professor of military history at West Point, and he earned the Distinguished Public Service Award for his volunteer service in Afghanistan. Dr. Kagan coauthored the report Defining Success in Afghanistan and is the author of the “Choosing Victory” report series, which recommended and monitored the US military surge in Iraq.Read the transcript here.Subscribe to our Substack here.

Content warning: Some cursing.What happens when you lose your mother… and still have to show up to work on Monday?In this deeply honest conversation, I sit down with Sarah Kagan of Keriah Coaching to talk about something we do not address nearly enough: grief in the workplace. Together, we explore how losing our mothers shaped not only our personal lives, but also how we experienced professional environments during one of the most vulnerable seasons of our lives.You can find Sarah here: https://www.keriahcoaching.com/Support me on Patreon! ⁠https://www.patreon.com/nikkithedeathdoula⁠You can find me here:https://linktr.ee/nikkithedeathdoulaGet merch! https://good-grief-podcast.printify.me/ Music:https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3495-cheery-monday

Jeff & Shannon shred the Supreme Court's 6-3 strike-down of Trump's IEEPA tariffs—don't panic, patriots—breaking Trump's fiery presser comeback, new 10% global tariff under Section 122, steel plants booming, and why this strengthens America First trade certainty. Tune in at Rumble, YouTube, X and Red State Talk Radio!

Atlantic writer Robert Kagan says as President Trump violates norms, laws and the Constitution, including his call to nationalize elections, we're on the edge of the consolidation of dictatorship. “I think we're already well into a dictatorship. It's just a question of whether [Trump] will go ahead and basically disrupt the '26 elections, which I think he's made it clear he has every intention of doing now,” Kagan tells Terry Gross. “So I think that this should be a five-alarm fire for everybody.”Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on a pair of cases involving men playing in women's sports—Little v. Hecox, and West Virginia v. BPJ.As usual the justice line up appeared to be Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts on the side of reason and law, and the three SCOTUS crones—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—as the liberal lunatics in the conversation. And once again Justice Ketanji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a woman is” Jackson presents herself as the dumbest Supreme Court justice to have ever existed. 

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on a pair of cases involving men playing in women's sports—Little v. Hecox, and West Virginia v. BPJ.As usual the justice line up appeared to be Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts on the side of reason and law, and the three SCOTUS crones—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—as the liberal lunatics in the conversation. And once again Justice Ketanji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a woman is” Jackson presents herself as the dumbest Supreme Court justice to have ever existed. 

Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on a pair of cases involving men playing in women's sports—Little v. Hecox, and West Virginia v. BPJ.As usual the justice line up appeared to be Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts on the side of reason and law, and the three SCOTUS crones—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—as the liberal lunatics in the conversation. And once again Justice Ketanji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a wom

The Washington Roundtable is joined by Robert Kagan, a historian and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, for a conversation about the pressures facing American democracy, the security of elections, and how these domestic tensions interact with the collapse of international norms. Nearly a decade after his prescient 2016 column for the Washington Post, “This is How Fascism Comes to America,” Kagan contends that the U.S. has moved beyond the warning and into a full democratic crisis. “There is no chance in the world that Donald Trump is gonna allow himself to lose in the 2026 elections, because that will be the end of his ability to wield total power in the United States,” Kagan says.This week's reading: “The Minnesota War Zone Is Trump's Most Trumpian Accomplishment,” by Susan B. Glasser “What It's Like to Be Trump's Closest Ally Right Now,” by Sam Knight “A D.H.S. Shooting Puts Portland Back Under the Microscope,” by James Ross Gardner  “Jay Powell, the Prepster Banker Who Is Standing Up to Trump,” by John Cassidy “How Donald Trump Has Transformed ICE,” Isaac Chotiner “How Colombia's President Reached an Uneasy Détente with Donald Trump,” by Jon Lee Anderson  “Iran's Regime Is Unsustainable,” by Robin Wright “The Supreme Court Gets Back to Work,” by Amy Davidson Sorkin “The Lights Are Still On in Venezuela,” by Armando Ledezma “How Marco Rubio Went from “Little Marco” to Trump's Foreign-Policy Enabler,” by Dexter Filkins  The Political Scene draws on the reporting and analysis found in The New Yorker for lively conversations about the big questions in American politics. Join the magazine's writers and editors as they put into context the latest news—about elections, the economy, the White House, the Supreme Court, and much more. New episodes are available three times a week. Tune in wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Hey there, listeners, buckle up because the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been on fire these past few days, handing President Donald Trump and his administration a string of high-stakes wins in battles over everything from the National Guard to passports and federal spending. Just eight days ago, on December 23, 2025, the Court ruled in Trump v. Illinois, siding against the administration's bid to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois without state consent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, while Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the move was essential for national security amid rising unrest in Chicago. The Brennan Center's Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker notes this as one of only five losses for the administration since January, out of 25 emergency decisions, with most favoring Trump at least partially and often with minimal explanation.But don't let that one setback fool you—the Court has been overwhelmingly pro-administration lately. On November 6, the justices greenlit the State Department's policy refusing passports that reflect transgender applicants' gender identity for a certified class of plaintiffs, overruling lower courts in a terse order. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented sharply, warning it tramples civil rights. This fits a pattern: back on October 3 in Noem v. National TPS Alliance, the Court forced the government to release congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds, with Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, blasting it as executive overreach. Earlier, September 22's Trump v. Slaughter let the administration dodge discovery demands from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington over DOGE Service materials under the Freedom of Information Act.Rewind a bit further into this whirlwind year, and the shadow docket explodes with immigration clashes. In Noem v. Doe on May 30, the Court allowed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to revoke parole en masse for half a million noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, skipping individual reviews—Justice Jackson dissented alongside Sotomayor. April's Trump v. J.G.G. permitted deportations of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, despite dissents from Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and even partial pushback from Amy Coney Barrett. A.A.R.P. v. Trump on April 19 blocked removals of Venezuelan nationals, a rare check, with Kavanaugh concurring and Alito dissenting.Civil service purges? Check: McMahon v. New York on July 14 okayed firing Department of Education employees, while Trump v. Boyle upheld Trump's power to boot Consumer Product Safety Commission members without cause. Even LGBTQ+ rights took hits, like United States v. Shilling in May letting the Defense Department terminate transgender service members. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker highlights ongoing suits, including a coalition of nonprofits and cities challenging the suspension of November 2025 SNAP benefits—a case that echoes lower court fights like District of Rhode Island's order to fully fund them.Since Inauguration Day, the Supreme Court's emergency docket—mostly Department of Justice filings—has tilted 20-to-5 toward Trump, per SCOTUSblog and Shadow Docket Watch data. Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh often push back against blocks, while the liberal trio fights rearguard actions. As 2025 wraps, two applications still pend, promising more drama.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Hey listeners, picture this: it's been a whirlwind week in the courts for President Donald Trump, with the Supreme Court dropping bombshells that could reshape his administration's bold moves. Just three days ago, on December 23, 2025, the nation's highest court issued a key ruling in Trump v. Illinois, tackling whether President Trump could federalize the Illinois National Guard and even pull in Texas troops to safeguard federal property in Chicago amid escalating violence. According to the Supreme Court's opinion, Trump activated 300 Illinois Guard members on October 4, followed by Texas forces the next day, citing riots where protesters hurled tear gas canisters at officers, tried grabbing firearms, and blasted bullhorns to cause hearing damage. Justice Alito's dissent slammed the lower District Court in Rhode Island for dismissing the government's unrefuted evidence of chaos, arguing it justified the President's call under federal law. While a majority granted the stay with some reasoning, Kavanaugh concurred, but Alito and Thomas pushed back hard, calling out the eleventh-hour shifts in opponents' arguments. This shadow docket decision, tracked by the Brennan Center, marks one of 25 emergency rulings since Trump took office on January 20, 2025—20 leaning his way, often with minimal explanation.But that's not all from the past few days. Fast-forward to the New York hush money saga: a fresh decision in People v. Donald J. Trump from the Manhattan court, penned by Judge Juan Merchan, shut down Trump's post-election bid to dismiss his 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Remember, a jury convicted him unanimously back in May 2024 for scheming to hide payments to Stormy Daniels, aiming to boost his presidential run through unlawful means. Trump requested delays himself—pushing sentencing past the election to November 26, 2024, then begging for a stay and dismissal after winning. The court wasn't buying it, noting Trump consented to those adjournments without opposition from prosecutors. Merchan emphasized the premeditated deception that eroded public trust, rejecting claims the case evaporates with his presidency, citing the Supreme Court's Trump v. United States immunity ruling but insisting justice demands accountability.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been a Trump turbo-boost all year. Brennan Center reports victories like Trump v. Boyle in July, greenlighting firings at the Consumer Product Safety Commission; McMahon v. New York upholding Education Department workforce cuts; and immigration wins such as Noem v. Doe, allowing mass parole revocations for half a million from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Even on LGBTQ+ fronts, November's ruling backed the State Department's passport gender policies. Not every call went his way—A.A.R.P. v. Trump lost on Venezuelan removals under the Alien Enemies Act—but the pattern's clear: 20 partial wins, with liberals like Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting repeatedly.Lawfare's litigation tracker highlights nonstop challenges, from SNAP benefit suspensions sparking suits by nonprofits and cities, to DOGE transparency fights where CREW got blocked from records. As of now, two more applications simmer. These battles in places like the First Circuit, DC Circuit, and beyond show Trump's team firing on all cylinders, testing presidential power's edges.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

At my monthly Ask Me Anything Webinars,  I always get questions about hormone therapy- when to start, when to stop, if the dose should be changed as women get older, and what to do if someone continues to have symptoms or continues to bleed…  In this episode, Dr. Risa Kagan and I answer submitted questions.  We start by briefly running through the established indications for starting menopausal hormone therapy (MHT), and then Dr. Kagan and I discuss the “what ifs” of hormone therapy.   Do you have to wait for 12 months without a period before starting MHT? If someone is taking birth control pills for control of perimenopause symptoms, at what point should they go off? And can they immediately transition to MHT or do they need to take a break and make sure they are no longer making estrogen? A  woman with severe hot flashes is having all day, all night hot flashes- how long is it going to take to get some relief?  Does it matter if it is oral or transdermal as far as the onset of action?  What are the chances of getting 100% relief?   If someone has started MHT but is still having flashes, how long should they wait before adjusting it?  What is the best starting dose if someone has severe flashes? High or low? A woman wrote in that she has been using a 0.75 patch, but continues to have severe flashes.  She got a serum level, and it is 10. Her doctor is reluctant to increase her dose. What would you tell her? A woman has tried four different protocols and has nuisance bleeding with all.  She had an ultrasound and biopsy, and it was all normal. She wants to continue MHT, but is tired of the bleeding. She wants to know which protocol is the least likely to cause bleeding An internist told a woman that after 5 years, it is time to go off her MHT.  What about if she is primarily taking it for hot flashes- how likely is it that her hot flashes will return?  What about if she is primarily on it for bone health (known osteopenia) and joint pain-? What about if she is primarily taking it for sexual benefits? (Libido, lubrication, orgasm) ? What about if she is primarily taking it because she is worried about dementia A woman decided to go off HT since she was only taking it for hot flashes and is now 10 years out. Her manicurist told her that she should taper; otherwise, her flashes will come back. Her gyne says, stop. What does Dr. Kagan say? A 60 year old woman started estrogen when she had a hysterectomy and ovary removal. She was told by her internist that there is no way she will still be having hot flashes in her 60s, and therefore no reason to continue her estrogen. Is that correct? What is the likelihood that she will still be having hot flashes in her 60s or 70s?  The next question is from a woman who increased her oral estradiol to 2 mg to get rid of her flashes,  but is still taking her original Prometrium dose 100 mg. Is that enough to protect the lining of her uterus? When do you increase it? A question from a Substack reader- “I used estradiol gel for 8 years at the start of menopause. I decided to stop it and did so for 3 years; however, my hot flashes (sleep, mood, etc) were relentless and violent. I decided to start again after a 3-years hiatus and at the age of 65. I feel so much better. Is this a problem having stopped and then started again a few years later?”  How can you tell the effectiveness of the HRT you're taking (other than no more hot flashes?) I still feel lack of motivation, low libido, joint aches and I'm so much slower running (1 min+/mile).  (What this really comes down to, is what are realistic expectations for what HT will do?)  How long can a postmenopausal woman stay on testosterone, estrogen and Progesterone?  Let's say a woman has been using a .05 estradiol patch but her skin is really irritated and has decided to try the spray instead.  What is the equivalent dose? A woman with a hysterectomy who is taking estrogen alone has been taking a 1 mg estradiol pill. She has decided to switch to conjugated equine estrogen since she would like breast protection.  Is that correct thinking? If she is going to make the switch, what is the equivalent dose?  A 51 year old is no longer having hot flashes but wants to continue her transdermal estrogen since she has low bone mass and is worried about progression to osteoporosis. What is the minimum dose of estradiol to ensure that she is getting maximum bone protection?  Many questions came in about initiating hormone therapy after age 65... Dr. Risa Kagan is a Clinical Professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, and a consulting gynecologist with Sutter Health.  Other episodes with Dr. Kagan Episode 114- Is Duovee the Ideal Hormone Therapy? Episode 175 Your Bones On and Off Estrogen When an IUD is Your Post Menopause Plan

For The Other Side NDE Videos Visit ️ youtube.com/@TheOtherSideNDEYT Purchase our book on Amazon The Other Side: Stories From the Afterlife https://a.co/d/23Bbbsa  As heat gives way to cold and the body falls silent, Jeremy drifts into a boundless space of peace and light. There, he moves through visions of other worlds, encounters the essence of creation, and understands that separation is an illusion. When he returns, the love and clarity remain, guiding his every breath. His message is simple but timeless: lighten up, let go, and remember the light you already are. Change Making Media Center https://tcmmc.org/ Link to his illustrated book - MY DEATH; A Personal Guidebook on amazon - https://tinyurl.com/bddv3dky Available on balboa - https://tinyurl.com/29jyd7ck 5 minute TEDx - https://vimeo.com/896357485 Website - https://jeremykagan.com/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.