Podcast appearances and mentions of Brett Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh latest // Tacoma schools will shorten holiday breaks after strike // Seattle has no idea how much bike lanes cost // GUEST: Associate Editor of Commentary Magazine Noah Rothman discusses the Kavanaugh hearings and FBI investigation // Sarah Sanders defends the White House not holding press briefings for nearly 3 weeks. 

President Trump has scored yet another YUGE win in the US Supreme Court, with the majority upholding the authority of the Article II Executive elected by the whole of the American people to carry out our political will, to DENY FUNDING that was granted on the basis of deranged DEI and racist ideologies.The SCOTUS opinion includes a SCATCHING rebuke of the unelected, tyrannical, inferior, federal district courts who are in OPEN REBELLION against the US Supreme Court, authored by the clearly and justifiably angry Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, both of whom have clearly had enough of the petulant inferior federal judges who simply refuse to accept any limitation whatever on their self-claimed infinite authority in their efforts to achieve their desired political outcomes.And, of course, in an opinion in which eight justices delivering a bundle of four distinct written opinions and dissent in a concise 14 pages, Justice Ketanji “Waffle House” Jackson is unable to restrain herself from consuming an additional full 18 pages to stomp her foot.Jackson extensively denigrates her colleagues on the SCOTUS bench as ruling in an “unprincipled and unfortunate” manner, delivering a decision that only uses “logic (such as it is)”, is “an even bigger mistake than I realized,” is lacking in “deviates dramatically” from “ordinary, commonsense,” and engaging in “Calvinball jurisprudence” in which “there are no fixed rules.” Instead, Justice Waffle House writes in describing this Supreme Court, “we seem to have only two [rules]: that one [that there are no fixed rules], and this Administration always wins.”Contemptible. The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

This Day in Legal History: Starve or SellOn August 15, 1876, the United States Congress passed a coercive measure aimed at forcing the Sioux Nation to relinquish their sacred lands in the Black Hills of present-day South Dakota. Known informally as the "starve or sell" bill, the legislation declared that no further federal appropriations would be made for the Sioux's food or supplies unless they ceded the Black Hills to the U.S. government. This came just two months after the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne had defeated General George Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, a major blow to U.S. military prestige.The Black Hills had been guaranteed to the Sioux in the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie, which recognized their sovereignty over the area. But when gold was discovered there in 1874 during Custer's expedition, settlers and miners flooded the region, violating the treaty. Rather than remove the intruders, the federal government shifted blame and sought to pressure the Sioux into surrendering the land.The 1876 bill effectively weaponized hunger by conditioning life-sustaining aid on land cession. This tactic ignored treaty obligations and relied on exploiting the Sioux's vulnerability after a harsh winter and military setbacks. Despite resistance from many tribal leaders, the U.S. government eventually secured signatures under extreme duress. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians ruled that the Black Hills were taken illegally and ordered compensation—money the Sioux have famously refused, insisting instead on the return of the land.Russian state-sponsored hackers infiltrated the U.S. federal court system and secretly accessed sealed records for years by exploiting stolen user credentials and a vulnerability in an outdated server. The breach, which remained undisclosed until recently, involved the deliberate targeting of sealed documents tied to sensitive matters like espionage, fraud, money laundering, and foreign agents. These records, normally protected by court order, often include details about confidential informants and active investigations. Investigators believe the hackers were backed by the Russian government, though they haven't been officially named in public disclosures.The Department of Justice has confirmed that “special measures” are now being taken to protect individuals potentially exposed in the breach. Acting Assistant Attorney General Matt Galeotti said that while technical and procedural safeguards are being implemented broadly, the DOJ is focusing particular attention on cases where sensitive information may have been compromised. He did not provide specifics but acknowledged that the situation demands urgent and tailored responses. Judges across the country were reportedly alerted in mid-July that at least eight federal court districts had been affected.This breach follows an earlier major compromise in 2020, also attributed to Russian actors, involving malicious code distributed through SolarWinds software. In response to both incidents, the judiciary has ramped up its cybersecurity efforts, including implementing multifactor authentication and revising policies on how sealed documents are handled. Some courts now require such documents to be filed only in hard copy. However, officials and experts alike have criticized Congress for underfunding judicial cybersecurity infrastructure, leaving it vulnerable to increasingly sophisticated attacks.The situation raises ongoing concerns about the security of national security cases and the exposure of individuals whose cooperation with law enforcement was meant to remain confidential. Lawmakers have requested classified briefings, and President Trump, who is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, acknowledged the breach but downplayed its significance.Russian Hackers Lurked in US Courts for Years, Took Sealed FilesUS taking 'special measures' to protect people possibly exposed in court records hack | ReutersA federal trial in California is testing the legal boundaries of the U.S. military's role in domestic affairs, focusing on President Donald Trump's deployment of troops to Los Angeles during protests in June. California Governor Gavin Newsom sued Trump, arguing the deployment of 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement. Testimony revealed that troops, including armed units and combat vehicles, were involved in activities like detaining individuals and supporting immigration raids—actions critics argue cross into law enforcement.The Justice Department defended Trump's actions, asserting that the Constitution permits the president to deploy troops to protect federal property and personnel. They also claimed California lacks the standing to challenge the deployment in civil court, since Posse Comitatus is a criminal statute that can only be enforced through prosecution. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer expressed concern about the lack of clear limits on presidential authority in such matters and questioned whether the logic behind the Justice Department's arguments would allow indefinite military involvement in domestic policing.Military officials testified that decisions in the field—such as setting up perimeters or detaining people—were made under broad interpretations of what constitutes protecting federal interests. The case took on added urgency when, on the trial's final day, Trump ordered 800 more National Guard troops to patrol Washington, D.C., citing high crime rates, despite statistical declines. The Justice Department has also invoked the president's immunity for official acts under a 2024 Supreme Court ruling, further complicating California's legal path.Trial shows fragility of limits on US military's domestic role | ReutersThe U.S. legal sector added jobs for the fifth consecutive month in July, nearing its all-time high of 1.2 million positions set in December 2023, according to preliminary Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. While this signals positive momentum, long-term growth remains modest; employment is only 1.7% higher than its May 2007 peak, showing how the 2008 financial crisis and the pandemic stalled progress. Big law firms, however, have seen major gains: between 1999 and 2021, the top 200 firms nearly doubled their lawyer headcount and saw revenues grow by 172%.Still, the wider legal job market—including paralegals and administrative staff—hasn't kept pace. Technological efficiencies and AI have reduced reliance on support staff, and the lawyer-to-staff ratio has declined steadily. Some general counsels are now using AI tools instead of outside firms for tasks like summarizing cases and compiling data, suggesting further disruption is on the horizon. Meanwhile, superstar lawyers at elite firms now earn upward of $10 million a year, driven by rising billing rates and high-demand corporate work.Broader U.S. job growth lagged in July, with the BLS issuing significant downward revisions for previous months. President Trump responded by firing BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, accusing her without evidence of data manipulation. On the law firm side, Boies Schiller is handling high-profile litigation over Florida's immigration policies, with rates topping $875 an hour for partners. Separately, Eversheds Sutherland reported a 10% jump in global revenue, citing strong performance in its U.S. offices and a new Silicon Valley branch.US legal jobs are rising again, but gains are mixed | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to temporarily block a Mississippi law requiring social media platforms to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent for minors, while a legal challenge from tech industry group NetChoice moves through the courts. NetChoice, whose members include Meta, YouTube, and Snapchat, argues the law violates the First Amendment's free speech protections. Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged the law is likely unconstitutional, he stated that NetChoice hadn't met the high standard necessary to halt enforcement at this early stage.The Mississippi law, passed unanimously by the state legislature, requires platforms to make “commercially reasonable” efforts to verify age and secure “express consent” from a parent or guardian before allowing minors to create accounts. The state can impose both civil and criminal penalties for violations. NetChoice initially won limited relief in lower court rulings, with a federal judge pausing enforcement against some of its members, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that pause without explanation.Mississippi officials welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to allow the law to remain in effect for now, calling it a chance for “thoughtful consideration” of the legal issues. Meanwhile, NetChoice sees the order as a procedural setback but remains confident about the eventual outcome, citing Kavanaugh's statement. The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on a state social media age-check law. Similar laws in seven other states have already been blocked by courts. Tech companies, facing increasing scrutiny over their platforms' impact on minors, insist they already provide parental controls and moderation tools.US Supreme Court declines for now to block Mississippi social media age-check law | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Samuel Coleridge-Taylor.On this day in 1875, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor was born in London to an English mother and a Sierra Leonean father. A composer of striking originality and lyricism, Coleridge-Taylor rose to prominence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, earning acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic. Often dubbed the “African Mahler” by American press during his tours of the U.S., he became a symbol of Black excellence in classical music at a time when such recognition was rare. He studied at the Royal College of Music under Charles Villiers Stanford, and by his early twenties, had already composed his most famous work, Hiawatha's Wedding Feast, which became a staple of British choral repertoire.Coleridge-Taylor's music blended Romanticism with rhythmic vitality, often inflected with the spirituals and folk influences he encountered during his visits to the United States. He was deeply inspired by African-American musical traditions and maintained a lifelong interest in promoting racial equality through the arts. His catalogue includes choral works, chamber music, orchestral pieces, and songs—each marked by melodic richness and emotional depth.This week, we close with the fifth and final movement of his 5 Fantasiestücke, Op. 5—titled "Dance." Composed when he was just 18, the piece captures the youthful exuberance and technical elegance that would characterize his career. Lively, rhythmically playful, and tinged with charm, “Dance” is a fitting celebration of Coleridge-Taylor's enduring legacy and a reminder of the brilliance he achieved in his all-too-brief life.Without further ado, Samuel Coleridge Taylor's 5 Fantasiestücke, Op. 5 – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Join Howard Morgan and Mozart Fontaine as they discuss wrestling - yesterday, today, and tomorrow - and take your calls. Visit http://vocnation.com. Full Video Episode Available for only $3/mo at www.vocnation.com! Subscribers also get commercial free audio and video of Wrestling with History featuring Bill Apter and Ken Resnick, In the Room featuring PWI's Brady Hicks and former WCW Star the Maestro, No BS with The Bull Manny Fernandez, and more! VOC Nation takes you behind the scenes of your favorite moments in pro wrestling history. Notable show hosts include legendary pro wrestling journalist Bill Apter, former WWE/TNA star Shelly Martinez, former WWE and AWA broadcaster Ken Resnick, former WCW performer The Maestro, former TNA Impact talent Wes Brisco, Pro Wrestling Illustrated's Brady Hicks, independent pro wrestling and Fireball Run star Sassy Stephie, and more! Since 2010, VOC Nation has brought listeners into the minds of the biggest stars in pro wrestling and entertainment. Subscribe to the podcasts for free on most major directories, and visit http://vocnation.com for live programming. Subscribe to premium - only $3/mo - for commercial full commercial free audio and video episodes. Exclusive access to 50 years of Bill Apter's interview archives is available for a nominal charge. Learn more about your ad choices. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ann talks with Johnette McKown, President of McClennan Community College, and Ashley Cruseturner, Chair History Dept, about MCC and the upcoming Brett Kavanaugh appearance. She also talks wiht Norman Northern about the upcoming Turquouise and Boots fudnraiser. Lastly we get some great music from Aaron Konzelman. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Sean Kavanaugh joins Wolf and Luke to discuss the new food items at State Farm Stadium for the 2025 Arizona Cardinals season. 

Subscribe now for the full episode! Jennifer Kavanaugh, senior fellow & director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, and Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, join the program to talk about their piece, “The Taiwan Fixation: American Strategy Shouldn't Hinge on an Unwinnable War.” The group delves into the contours of the debate around Taiwan in DC, whether there's any daylight between the two parties, strategic ambiguity and where it stands in Trump 2.0, how a decline in US hegemony in East Asia affects plans for a Taiwan intervention, and what Jennifer and Stephen recommend instead of America's current approach.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome back! On today's episode of the WDNA Podcast, we're joined by Joe Kavanaugh for a deep dive into all things whitetail hunting in the state of Kansas. Joe is a die-hard bowhunter and has an impressive track record when it comes to hunting mature animals. Joe shares his approach to preparation for the upcoming hunting season, including the projects he's tackled on his 160-acre farm in Kansas. The guys dive into what makes Kansas such a unique state for chasing giant bucks and why so many hunters are drawn to it, but are now facing challenges in drawing a nonresident tag. Joe opens up about how politics and regulations are shaping the future of hunting opportunities across the country, and how it can be a challenge to know how to be involved in the fight. Lastly, Joe covers a recent project he's been working on with Pnuma Outdoors called "The Average Joe". This series covers practical advice and experience when it comes to managing a farm for the DIY hunter. This was an all-around fun conversation between passionate bowhunters. Enjoy the show!  New episodes drop every Wednesday at 6AM CST LINKS: Subscribe to the YouTube Channel Follow along on Instagram and Facebook Check out the Website The WhitetailDNA Podcast is presented by: Dark Energy | 10% OFF (code: wdna10) Rack Hub | 10% OFF (code: whitetaildna) Pnuma Outdoors | 20% OFF (code: wdna20) Tactacam Reveal Cameras  Tactacam Reveal Accessories  Custom Archery & Outdoors Kifaru

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showGhislaine Maxwell has sat for a meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who not very long ago was serving as President Trump's personal criminal defense attorney. The idea seems to be that Maxwell could offer some “help” getting to the bottom of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal in exchange for some sort of leniency. That's for free subscribers. For paying subscribers this week, there's much more:* Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron's libel suit against Candace Owens* The machinations that have kept Alina Habba in charge, for now, at the US Attorney's Office in New Jersey* Another ruling blocking the administration's effort to restrict birthright citizenship* A strange Supreme Court order saying lower courts should do a better job inferring what its decisions on the shadow docket mean, and a concurrence from Justice Kavanaugh that says the lower courts really do need more guidance — guidance that only a more proactive and meddlesome Supreme Court can provide.To get the whole episode, go to serioustrouble.show

Welcome to the land podcast, a platform for people looking to educate themselves in the world of land ownership, land investing, staying up to date with current land trends in the Midwest, and hearing from industry experts and professionals. On today's episode, we are back in the studio with Joe Kavanaugh. We discuss: Joe Cavanaugh shares his journey from Minnesota to Denver, focusing on hunting He discusses the challenges of making friends in a new city as an adult Joe and his partner bought 160 acres in Western Kansas for hunting and land management He reflects on the differences between hunting in the Midwest and the West The podcast highlights the importance of communication in partnerships Joe emphasizes the need for a written agreement when co-owning land He shares lessons learned about land expectations and market fluctuations The conversation touches on the emotional attachment to land and hunting Joe discusses the impact of deer population issues in Western Kansas He advises potential land buyers to assess their hunting goals and expectations And so much more! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.whitetailmasteracademy.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Use code '⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HOFER' to save 10% off at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.theprairiefarm.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Massive potential tax savings: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ASMLABS.Net⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Moultrie: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/moultrie_⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Hawke Optics: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/hawkeoptics_⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -OnX: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/onX_Hunt⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Painted Arrow: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/PaintedArrow

Fighting the Jezebel Spirit - Trad Con ArtistsWebsite: http://www.battle4freedom.com/Network: https://www.mojo50.comStreaming: https://www.rumble.com/Battle4Freedomhttps://www.youtube.com/@_battle4freedomhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2021%3A9&version=CJBProverbs 21:9It is better to live on a corner of the roof than to share the house with a nagging wife.Remember to identify the Churchianic response vs the Messianic response.Chinese women are crying after the new https://youtu.be/gA68u1Ih6iQhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2034%3A1-4&version=CJBGenesis 34:1-41 One time Dinah the daughter of Le'ah, whom she had borne to Ya`akov, went out to visit the local girls; 2 and Sh'khem the son of Hamor the Hivi, the local ruler, saw her, grabbed her, raped her and humiliated her. 3 But actually he was strongly attracted to Dinah the daughter of Ya`akov; he fell in love with the girl and tried to win her affection. 4 Sh'khem spoke with his father Hamor and said, "Get this girl for me; I want her to be my wife."Remember Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh and #MeTooFacts: Going into a drug and alcohol infused where people are looking for drugs, alcohol and sex expecting not to be a victim is like going to a supermarket and get offended that it actually had food.Rachel Cruze degrades man making 80k. https://www.tiktok.com/@george.kamel/video/7525087954230889758"I Have $12,000,000, and She Has $50,000"https://youtu.be/sstLcwDA5gAThe Nagging War Continues https://youtu.be/WMG8y1uOmGUFacts: Ultimatums are an illusion because the decision has already been made!Credit to:https://www.pexels.com/photo/the-word-fraud-spelled-out-in-scrabble-letters-19835552/

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit smokeempodcast.substack.comNancy and Sarah discuss a recent viral essay in NYT magazine called “The Trouble With Wanting Men.” Nancy had a meltdown reading this story, while Sarah saw romantic problems she recognized as well as behavior designed to fail. The two ladies talk about a vogue for female bitchery, a lack of grace in women's voices, and whether men and women can ever repair the anger and resentment that's erupted between them — at least online.Also discussed:* The time Nancy's mom bought Black Sabbath PARANOID on 8-track* That time Ozzy peed on the Alamo* diddle-diddle-diddle* Sarah propositions Kat Rosenfield, mispronounces her last name (again)* Maybe that Mars/Venus guy was onto something* Sarah wept through the Kavanaugh hearings* “Why didn't you tell me you had a uterus?”* Girlboss versus YouPorn; YouPorn wins* Cormac McCarthy lunges from ambush* Sarah negs Nancy, proves that negging works …* Open marriages, oy* “Bratty sub”* Nancy does not want a man to bend to her whims* A debate over the word “thrill”* That Texas Monthly flood essay, damn* Nancy gives advice to overheated feminists* Sarah waxes sociological about equality and same-sex relationships* “hermeneutic labor” is …?* All snuggle, all the timePlus, what Sarah wants Nancy to read her on her deathbed, Pedro Pascal is too much with us, Christopher Hitchens on Bill Clinton, and much more!

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

In this case, the court considered this issue: Did Congress violate the Constitution in the way it delegated power to the FCC to collect Universal Service Fund money, and did the FCC violate the Constitution by letting a private, industry-controlled company make those collection decisions?The case was decided on June 27, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the statutory scheme that allows the FCC to collect “sufficient” contributions to fund universal-service programs does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Justice Elena Kagan authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.The Communications Act directs the FCC to collect contributions that are “sufficient” to support universal-service programs, which sets both a floor and a ceiling on the agency's authority. The FCC cannot raise less than what is adequate to finance the programs, but also cannot raise more than that amount. Congress provided adequate guidance by specifying whom the programs must serve (rural and high-cost areas, low-income consumers, schools, and libraries) and defining which services qualify for subsidies. To receive funding, services must be subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers, be available at affordable rates, and be essential to education, public health, or safety. These conditions create determinate standards that meaningfully constrain the FCC's discretion.The FCC's use of the Universal Service Administrative Company to help calculate contribution amounts also passes constitutional muster. The Administrator operates subordinately to the Commission, which appoints its Board of Directors, approves its budget, and retains final decision-making authority. While the Administrator produces initial projections of carrier revenues and Fund expenses, the Commission reviews, revises if needed, and approves these figures before setting the contribution factor. The arrangement mirrors the permissible structure approved in Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, where private parties could make recommendations to a government agency that retained ultimate authority.Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion, agreeing with the outcome but emphasizing concerns about delegations to independent agencies.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, expressing skepticism about the viability of the private nondelegation doctrine as an independent constitutional principle.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, arguing that Section 254 impermissibly delegates Congress's taxing power by failing to set a tax rate or meaningful cap on collections.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Episode 32: OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Dave Yost, et al.OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Dave Yost, et al., argued before Circuit Judges Raymond M. Kethledge, Eric E. Murphy, and Andre B. Mathis in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on July 23, 2025. Argued by Elisabeth C. Frost (on behalf of OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership), Mathura Jaya Sridharan (on behalf of Dave Yost, et al.), and Jason Walta (for Amicus Ohio Education Association).Background of the case, from the Brief of Appellees – Cross Appellants (Second Brief):It is well established that lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) are entitled to First Amendment protection, including for their political speech. And the Supreme Court has long held that spending to promote or oppose direct democracy measures is core First Amendment expression. Nevertheless, [in 2024], Ohio enacted Ohio Revised Code § 3517.121 (“Section 121”), making it a crime for any noncitizen—including LPRs—to engage in any political spending.Section 121's broad prohibitions reach every conceivable type of spending, from direct contributions to independent expenditures, whether made “directly or indirectly through any person or entity,” and apply even to spending “in support of or opposition to a statewide ballot issue or question, regardless of whether the ballot issue or question has yet been certified to appear on the ballot.” Id. § 3517.121(B)(2). At the same time, Section 121 invites political weaponization, mandating that the Attorney General investigate any alleged violation made by any Ohio elector. Id. § 3517.121(G)(2)(a). The law's sheer breadth, lack of tailoring, and threat of unrestrained investigations threaten and will chill the core First Amendment activity of not just noncitizens, but also citizens and domestic organizations who take donations from noncitizens or involve noncitizen decisionmakers….In support, Ohio relies overwhelmingly on a reading of Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 288 n.3 (D.D.C. 2011), aff'd, 565 U.S. 1104 (2012), that is at odds with the decision itself. Bluman held that Congress may constitutionally prohibit foreign citizens other than LPRs from directly contributing to candidates or to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate, but in writing for that court, then-Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly cautioned that restrictions on political spending by LPRs or for issue advocacy would raise substantial constitutional questions. See, e.g., id. at 292 (making explicit court was not deciding whether Congress could extend ban to LPRs or restrict noncitizens engaging in “issue advocacy and speaking out on issues of public policy,” warning its holding “should not be read to support such bans”). [Emphasis in original.]The Bluman court was right to be concerned—and this Court should be, too, now that Ohio has enacted such a ban….Resources:CourtListener docket page for OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Dave Yost, et al.Ohio Revised Code § 3517.121 (“Section 121”)Brief of Appellants – Cross Appellees (First Brief) [Ohio]Brief of Appellees – Cross Appellants (Second Brief) [OPAWL]The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Taylor speaks on his journey as an entrepreneur and his iterations through several film companies. He talks about what it takes to access the best of your creative ideas. He gives insight on the structure necessary to unlock creative talent within an organization. Most of all, he shares what inspires him to keep showing up… again and again and again.Full-length video episodes are available on YouTube. Follow the show on Instagram and TikTok @bscartv. Created and Produced by Scarlett Creative. scarlettcreative.coSUBSCRIBE, LIKE, COMMENT, REVIEW. We love some constructive criticism.'Til next time... Peace ✌️

Dive into the high-stakes world of America's judiciary on CURE America: Justice on the Line! Join host Donald Easton, president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), for an electrifying one-on-one with Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN). From the battlegrounds of Supreme Court nominations to the hidden power of state courts, Severino pulls back the curtain on the legal fights shaping our nation's future. A former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and co-author of the explosive bestseller Justice on Trial, Severino reveals her journey from pre-med to legal powerhouse, exposing the challenges of conservative advocacy in a polarized world. Get the inside scoop on JCN's mission to defend embattled judicial nominees, the truth behind the Kavanaugh confirmation firestorm, and the shocking 90% of cases decided beyond the Supreme Court's reach. From Tennessee's bold stand on transgender treatments to the fight against rogue judges' overreach, this episode unpacks it all with gripping insights. Tune in for a no-holds-barred discussion on liberty, justice, and the courts, as Severino shares how citizens can stay informed and influence the future. Catch her at judicialnetwork.com or on X at @JCNSeverino. Don't miss the drama, the stakes, and the faith-driven close that defines CURE America!

Nearly 60 million people in the U.S. fall into the broad category of independent workers. Those include contract, temporary and gig workers. Their jobs do not fall neatly into employer-connected benefit systems, so policymakers increasingly are exploring benefits that are instead attached to the worker. Several states have enacted legislation allowing portable benefits to be set up in their state. Other states have created programs that offer automatic enrollment for employees without access to an employer-sponsored plan. All those efforts are aimed at expanding the ways people save for retirement and other needs. On this episode to discuss the issue are John Scott, director of the Retirement Savings Project at Pew, Kristen Sharp of the Flex Association and Karen Kavanaugh, who's working with Tufts University on the Working While Caring Initiative.All three talked about how the worker benefits system can better serve people in the changing economy and provide them with greater financial security.Scott laid out the scale of the challenge to improve financial security for Americans and Sharp discussed how portable benefits can help the people her group serves, the millions of people whose work is app-based and need a better system to receive benefits. Kavanaugh is focused on how benefits employers provide can be better shaped to help the tens of millions of people in this country with caregiving responsibilities. She's overseeing a pilot project that's exploring how smaller employers can build in the flexibility needed by many caregivers. ResourcesPortable Benefits for Independent Contractors: A Framework for State Policymaking, NCSLStates, Employers Weigh Portable Benefits for Independent Workers, NCSLWorkers Without Access to Retirement Benefits Struggle to Build Wealth, Pew 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the structure of the U-S Preventive Services Task Force violate the Constitution's Appointments Clause, and if so, is the provision that insulates the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary's supervision severable from the rest of the statute?The case was decided on June 27, 2025.The Supreme Court held that members of the U-S Preventive Services Task Force are inferior officers whose appointment by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is consistent with the Appointments Clause. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.The Secretary of HHS can remove Task Force members at will, which provides “a powerful tool for control” because officers' “presumed desire to avoid removal” creates “here-and-now subservience.” Since Congress granted the Secretary appointment power and placed no statutory restrictions on removal, the Secretary may remove Task Force members at will. Additionally, the Secretary has statutory authority to review and block Task Force recommendations before they take effect through his general supervisory authority over the Public Health Service under 42 U-S-C § 202, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966, and his rulemaking authority under § 300gg-92. The Affordable Care Act requires a minimum one-year interval before recommendations become binding, during which the Secretary can direct that recommendations not be “in effect” or establish formal review processes. Task Force members therefore “have no power to render a final decision on behalf of the United States unless permitted to do so by” the Secretary.Congress vested appointment authority in the Secretary through two statutes read together. First, the 1999 statute gives the AHRQ Director power to “convene” the Task Force, which naturally includes appointment authority given the requirement to ensure members have “appropriate expertise.” Second, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966, ratified by Congress in 1984, transfers “all functions” of Public Health Service officers to the Secretary, including the AHRQ Director's appointment power. The statutory requirement that Task Force members be “independent and, to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure” does not create for-cause removal protection or prevent secretarial supervision, but rather ensures members are not unduly influenced by outside professional affiliations and can exercise independent judgment in formulating initial recommendations, consistent with the standard model of Executive Branch adjudication.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, arguing that Congress has not explicitly vested appointment authority in the Secretary and that Task Force members are principal officers who must be appointed by the President with Senate confirmation.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the First Step Act's sentencing reduction provision apply to a defendant whose original sentence was imposed before the Act's enactment, but was later vacated and resentenced after the Act took effect?The case was decided on June 26, 2025. The Supreme Court held that because a sentence “has...been imposed” for purposes of § 403(b) of the First Step Act only if the sentence is extant (i.e., has not been vacated), the Act's more lenient penalties apply to defendants whose previous 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) sentences have been vacated and who need to be resentenced following the Act's enactment. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.When Congress employs the present-perfect tense (“has been imposed”), it addresses whether something has continuing relevance to the present, not merely whether it occurred as a historical fact. The present-perfect tense can refer to either “an act, state, or condition that is now completed” or “a past action that comes up to and touches the present,” but in both senses it conveys that the event in question continues to be true or valid. A sentence has been imposed for § 403(b) purposes only if it remains extant—that is, has not been vacated. This interpretation aligns with background legal principles that vacated court orders are void ab initio and lack prospective legal effect.Background principles confirm this interpretation. When interpreting statutes, courts recognize that Congress legislates against certain unexpressed presumptions, including that vacated court orders are treated as though they never occurred. Just as defendants with vacated prior felony convictions are not precluded from possessing weapons under the federal felon-in-possession ban, § 403(b) retroactivity does not exclude those whose prior sentences have been vacated. The statute's use of present-perfect rather than past-perfect tense, especially when adjacent provisions use simple past tense, reinforces that only past sentences with continued validity preclude application of the Act's new penalties.Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, arguing that the present-perfect tense in §403(b) refers to the historical fact of whether a sentence had been imposed as of the Act's enactment date, regardless of subsequent vacatur.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” a federal court challenged SCOTUS' ruling on birthright citizenship due to a possible loophole left behind by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Then, the FBI and DOJ might not be done with the Epstein case after all. Next, Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters joins PragerU to create an assessment that will evaluate teachers for their “America First” values. Finally, American social media influencer Douglass Mackey just had his election interference conviction overturned.   Today's Guests: Sara is joined by Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters via Zoom, and later by American social media influencer Douglass Mackey via Zoom. She is also joined in studio by BlazeTV contributor Matthew Marsden and host of “The Bottom Line” Jaco Booyens.   Today's Sponsor:   NativePath: Let me get you started with up to 66% off and free shipping. Go to nativekrill.com/unfiltered. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Living the Good Life with Tom KavanaughEpisode Title: From Trauma to Tailwinds — Releasing What Holds Us BackGuest: Tom Kavanaugh, MA | Master Coach & Educator | NewCoachingStrategies.comEpisode Summary: What if your past no longer had the power to define your future? In this episode, Kimberly sits down with Tom Kavanaugh, a Marine Corps veteran, master trainer, and transformational coach who's helped thousands of people break free from burnout, emotional baggage, and self-imposed limits. Together, they explore what it means to truly live the good life—with purpose, joy, and maybe a little magic along the way. Tom shares his morning rituals, his favorite brain-boosting hobbies (think chess and billiards!), and the Release Method he developed to help people move from stuck to unstoppable. They also dive into emotional healing, identity, trauma, and why the road to fulfillment begins with taking care of yourself first. Whether you're feeling a little stuck or simply ready for your next breakthrough, this is a conversation that will meet you right where you are.

I am not able to generate a full script in excess of 350 words within this platform's response limits, but I can craft a sample script that is vivid, natural, and within the word range you requested, based on recent events and current news regarding Donald Trump's court trials and legal actions.Let's dive in.This is a story of legal battles and presidential power, right from the headlines of the past few days—a story where Donald Trump continues to loom large over the American legal landscape. Just as the summer heat rises, so too does the temperature in the courtroom. According to multiple sources, including Lawfare and SCOTUSblog, Trump's legal journey has been anything but predictable.In early May, Lawfare covered the twists and turns of Trump's trials, starting with the aftermath of the New York case where, back in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. By January 2025, Justice Juan Merchan had sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, essentially closing the book on that chapter for now—though appeals and challenges continue to ripple through the system. Over in Florida, the federal indictment concerning classified documents saw a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case after ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department eventually dismissed its appeals against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in early 2025. That case, for now, has quieted.But the Supreme Court has not. The 2024-25 term, as SCOTUSblog recounts, was filled with legal fireworks, especially for Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts—a major win that played a role in Trump's return to the White House and his outsized influence over the Court's docket. The justices also handed Trump another victory by limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. That set the stage for new legal battles, such as challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—described as “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. Still, the Supreme Court hasn't yet definitively ruled on this issue, and all eyes are on how the justices will act.Just this week, news arrived regarding Supreme Court stay orders. On July 8, 2025, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California in the case Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, involving Executive Order No. 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management—a move that allows the Trump administration to move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, pending further action in the Ninth Circuit. The Court indicated the government was likely to succeed on the lawfulness of the order. Earlier, on June 27, the Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., largely granting a stay regarding injunctions against Trump's executive order on citizenship. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, found certain injunctions against the executive order to be too broad. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented.Behind the scenes, Trump's legal team is fighting to move state prosecutions to federal courts. According to Just Security, Trump tried to remove the Manhattan prosecution to federal court, but was denied leave to file after missing a deadline. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case—including Mark Meadows—are seeking Supreme Court review of decisions related to moving their case to federal court.All told, it's been a whirlwind of legal maneuvers and judicial rulings. Every week seems to bring a new confrontation, a new emergency docket, or a new challenge testing the limits of presidential power. As of today, July 9, 2025, the legal saga around Donald Trump is far from over.Thanks for tuning in to this update on the trials and travails of Donald J. Trump. Remember to come back next week for more analysis and the latest twists in this ongoing legal drama. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program. This program had been in effect since 2013 and required that car companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions and produce fleets that are at least 15% electric vehicles. The waiver was withdrawn due to a lack of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” and because California could not show a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from fuel producers (among others) who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the fuel producers' statutory claim based on a determination that they did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor.This Supreme Court case presented the question whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. On June 20, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of standing. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case and this decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh.Featuring:Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLPModerator: Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Givens Pursley LLP--To register, click the link above.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California regulations that require automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of California regulations that require automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles because invalidating the regulations would likely redress their monetary injuries from decreased fuel sales. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The California regulations force automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles, thereby reducing demand for gasoline and other liquid fuels. Article III standing requires showing injury in fact, causation, and redressability—meaning the plaintiff must demonstrate actual harm caused by the defendant that judicial relief would likely fix. When government regulation of one business predictably causes downstream economic injuries to linked businesses, commonsense economic principles support finding that invalidating the regulation would likely redress those injuries by removing the regulatory impediment to the injured party's sales.Record evidence confirms that invalidating the regulations would likely redress the fuel producers' injuries, including: California's own estimates showing the regulations would cause substantial reductions in gasoline demand exceeding $10 billion by 2030; California's statements that the regulations are “critical” for emissions reductions and that without them fewer electric vehicles would be sold; EPA's affirmation that California “needs” these standards; and five automakers' intervention predicting that absent the regulations, competitors would sell fewer electric vehicles to gain market advantage. The Court rejected arguments that fuel producers needed expert affidavits or declarations from automakers to establish redressability, explaining that requiring such evidence would improperly make standing depend on alignment between plaintiffs and regulated third parties.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion arguing that the Court should have vacated and remanded for the D.C. Circuit to reconsider based on corrected facts about when the regulations expire.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion arguing the Court applies standing doctrine inconsistently by accepting commonsense inferences for business plaintiffs while demanding more evidence from civil rights plaintiffs.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Hobbs Act require a federal district court to accept the Federal Communication Commission's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not preclude judicial review of an agency's statutory interpretation in district court enforcement proceedings, and district courts must independently determine whether the agency's interpretation is correct under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.Courts may grant pre-enforcement review of agency orders through three types of statutes: those that expressly preclude subsequent judicial review in enforcement proceedings (like the Clean Water Act), those that expressly authorize review in both contexts, and those that remain silent on enforcement proceedings (like the Hobbs Act). The Hobbs Act falls into the third category, which triggers a default rule allowing district courts to independently assess agency interpretations. The Administrative Procedure Act codifies this presumption of judicial review, stating that “agency action is subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial enforcement” unless prior review was adequate and exclusive. The phrase “determine the validity” in the Hobbs Act refers specifically to entering declaratory judgments in pre-enforcement proceedings, not to the broader process of evaluating an agency interpretation's correctness in enforcement actions.The Emergency Price Control Act precedent from Yakus v United States does not control because that wartime statute contained two provisions working together: exclusive jurisdiction language plus an express prohibition against other courts considering validity. Congress chose not to include this second, prohibitive provision when enacting the Hobbs Act six years later, demonstrating its intent not to preclude enforcement-stage review. Practical concerns about potential court disagreements do not override statutory text and administrative law principles, as circuit splits followed by Supreme Court review represent the ordinary judicial process. Requiring all potentially affected parties to challenge every agency order within 60 days or lose their rights would be impractical and unfair, particularly for entities that did not exist when orders issued or had no reason to anticipate future enforcement proceedings.Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that the Hobbs Act's grant of “exclusive jurisdiction” to appellate courts to “determine the validity” of agency orders plainly precludes district courts from making such determinations in enforcement proceedings.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

America is turning 250. And we're throwing a yearlong celebration of the greatest country on Earth. The greatest? Yes. The greatest. We realize that's not a popular thing to say these days. Americans have a way of taking this country for granted: a Gallup poll released earlier this week shows that American pride has reached a new low. And the world at large, which is wealthier and freer than it has ever been in history thanks to American power and largesse, often resents us. We get it. As journalists, we spend most of our time finding problems and exposing them. It's what the job calls for. But if you only focus on the negatives, you get a distorted view of reality. As America hits this milestone birthday, it's worthwhile to take a moment to step back and look closely at where we actually are—and the reality of life in America today compared to other times and places. That reality is pretty spectacular. Could Thomas Jefferson and the men gathered in Philadelphia who wrote down the words that made our world—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”—ever have imagined what their Declaration of Independence would bring? The Constitution. The end of slavery—and the defeat of Hitler. Astonishing wealth and medical breakthroughs. Silicon Valley. The most powerful military in the world. The moon landing. Hollywood. The Hoover Dam. The Statue of Liberty (a gift from France). Actual liberation (a thing we gave France). Humphrey Bogart and Tom Hanks. Josephine Baker and Beyoncé. Hot dogs. Corn dogs. American Chinese food. American Italian food. The Roosevelts and the Kennedys. The Barrymores and the Fondas. Winston Churchill (his mom was from Brooklyn). The Marshall Plan and Thurgood Marshall. Star Wars. Missile-defense shields. Baseball. Football. The military-industrial complex. Freedom of religion. UFO cults. Television. The internet. The Pill. The Pope. The automobile, the airplane, and AI. Jazz and the blues. The polio vaccine and GLP-1s, the UFC and Dolly Parton. The list goes on because it's really, truly endless. Ours is a country where you can hear 800 languages spoken in Queens, drive two hours and end up among the Amish in Pennsylvania. We are 330 million people, from California to New York Island, gathered together as one. Each of those 330 million will tell you that ours is not a perfect country. But we suspect most of them would agree that their lives would not be possible without it. So for the next 12 months, we're going to toast to our freedoms on the page, on this podcast and in real life. And we're doing it the Free Press way: by delving into all of it—the bad and the good and the great, the strange and the wonderful and the wild. And today—on America's 249th birthday—we're kicking off this yearlong event with none other than Akhil Reed Amar. Akhil has a unique understanding of this country—and our Constitution. Akhil is a Democrat who testified on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh, is a member of The Federalist Society, who is pro-choice but also anti-Roe—and these seeming contradictions make him perfectly suited to answer questions about the political and legal polarization we find ourselves in today. Akhil is a constitutional law professor at Yale and the author of the brilliant book The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760–1840. He also hosts the podcast Amarica's Constitution, and you might recognize his name from his work in The Atlantic. I ask him about the unique history that created our founding document, the state of the country, our political polarization, the American legal system, and what this country means to him. The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on Gaslit Nation, we're joined by the fearless, brilliant Carter Sherman, an award-winning journalist at The Guardian and one of the sharpest voices covering reproductive rights and sexual politics. Her new book, The Second Coming: Sex and the Next Generation's Fight Over Its Future, is a battle cry for Gen Z, a generation navigating the fallout of a stolen Supreme Court, Me Too, incel culture, and a pornified internet. We dive into how young people are rewriting the rules of intimacy in the face of political oppression. Carter's reporting brings us inside the bedrooms and minds of Gen Zers who are coming of age in a country where Roe v. Wade was overturned exactly as we knew it would be. A generation told they're free is now wrestling with the reality that their rights are under siege, and for many, that anxiety has become physical. As one woman told Carter, she couldn't even have sex without being hounded by Kavanaugh's voice in her head. This isn't just a story of fear; it's one of resistance. Carter shares how young people are pushing back, from Kansas voters defending abortion rights to college students canvassing in swing states. But she also warns of the growing threat: the rise of the Manosphere, where boys are radicalized by algorithm and learn to hate women before they can legally drink. What can young women and young men agree on? That the Democratic Party brand is toxic, because it's Republican Lite.  The Second Coming is a deeply reported, fiercely human portrait of a generation caught between tech, trauma, and tyranny. This week's bonus show will look at the horror of Trump's Big Evil Bill passing through Congress, and our discussion of Lillian Faderman's landbook book The Gay Revolution–a resistance blueprint for us today.  Thank you to everyone who supports Gaslit Nation–we could not make this show without you!  Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit! EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION: NEW DATE! Thursday July 31 4pm ET – the Gaslit Nation Book Club discusses Antoine de Saint Exupéry's The Little Prince written in the U.S. during America First.  Minnesota Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other, available on Patreon.  Vermont Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other, available on Patreon.  Arizona-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to connect, available on Patreon.  Indiana-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to join, available on Patreon.  Florida-based listeners are going strong meeting in person. Be sure to join their Signal group, available on Patreon.  Have you taken Gaslit Nation's HyperNormalization Survey Yet? Gaslit Nation Salons take place Mondays 4pm ET over Zoom and the first ~40 minutes are recorded and shared on Patreon.com/Gaslit for our community  

This Day in Legal History: Abraham Lincoln Passes First Income TaxOn July 1, 1862, amid the mounting costs of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the nation's first true federal income tax under the Tax Act of 1862. This legislation imposed a 3% tax on annual incomes over $600 and a 5% tax on incomes exceeding $10,000—significant thresholds at the time. The tax was part of a broader revenue strategy that included an expansion of excise taxes and the creation of the Internal Revenue Office, the predecessor to today's IRS. It marked a pivotal moment in U.S. legal history, as the federal government, for the first time, claimed broad authority to directly tax personal income.Though innovative, compliance with the law was inconsistent, reflecting both limited administrative capacity and public resistance. The tax was designed to be progressive and temporary, aimed solely at funding the Union war effort. After the Civil War, political pressure mounted against its continuation, and public sentiment shifted toward limiting federal power in peacetime.The law remained controversial until it was effectively struck down decades later. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. that a similar federal income tax law was unconstitutional, declaring it a "direct tax" not properly apportioned among the states. This decision undermined the legal foundation of the 1862 tax, though it had long since lapsed. It wasn't until the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 that a permanent federal income tax regime was constitutionally authorized.The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued several rulings that significantly reduced federal environmental protections, continuing a broader judicial trend. In one of the most consequential decisions, the Court curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This 8-0 ruling allows federal agencies to narrow the scope of environmental reviews, excluding indirect and future project impacts, which could expedite infrastructure projects like a proposed crude oil railway in Utah. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that courts must defer to agency discretion in such matters, reinforcing agency authority but limiting public scrutiny.The Court also restricted EPA powers under the Clean Water Act in a 5-4 decision concerning a wastewater permit for San Francisco. The majority found the EPA's water quality requirements too vague, weakening enforcement capabilities and potentially harming water quality in affected areas. This decision strips the agency of a key tool used to maintain federally regulated waters' safety.Additionally, the justices allowed fuel producers to challenge California's stringent vehicle emissions standards in a 7-2 ruling, broadening legal standing for businesses in environmental litigation. These moves collectively signal a judicial shift favoring regulatory leniency and business interests over expansive environmental oversight.US Supreme Court dealt blows to EPA and environmental protections | ReutersFollowing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits nationwide injunctions, two federal judges are expediting legal challenges to President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship. The order, which takes effect July 27, denies automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. During hearings in Maryland and New Hampshire, a Department of Justice lawyer confirmed that no deportations of affected children will occur before the order becomes active.Judges Deborah Boardman and Joseph LaPlante demanded written assurances from the government, and plaintiffs in both cases—immigrant rights advocates and pregnant non-citizens—pushed for immediate class-wide relief due to fears surrounding their children's legal status. The Supreme Court's ruling last Friday did not validate Trump's policy but did restrict judges from issuing broad injunctions that halt federal policies for the entire country, unless done through class action lawsuits. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion suggested that class actions remain a viable path to broader judicial relief.Trump's administration argues that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee birthright citizenship, a position rejected by many lower courts. The Maryland judge scheduled a ruling after July 9, while a hearing in the New Hampshire case is set for July 10.Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal judge's decision that struck down an executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, known for its past representation of Hillary Clinton and Democratic interests. The appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, follows a May ruling by Judge Beryl Howell that permanently blocked the order, which aimed to bar Perkins Coie's clients from federal contracts and restrict the firm's attorneys from accessing federal buildings.Judge Howell condemned the order as an abuse of presidential power meant to punish political adversaries, stating that using government authority to settle personal scores is not a lawful use of executive power. Similar executive orders against three other law firms—WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—were also struck down by different judges in Washington. The Justice Department has not yet appealed those rulings.Perkins Coie, along with the other firms, argued that the orders violated constitutional rights, including free speech, and were designed to intimidate attorneys from representing clients disfavored by Trump. The firm expressed confidence in presenting its case to the appeals court. Meanwhile, nine other firms have reportedly settled with the administration, offering nearly $1 billion in pro bono work and other terms to avoid being targeted.Trump administration appeals blocking of executive order against law firm Perkins Coie | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the explosive growth of tax breaks for data centers—driven by the demands of artificial intelligence—is creating unsustainable losses for state budgets. While these facilities are essential for powering AI models, states are racing to hand out subsidies with little oversight or accountability. I point out that what began as modest tech incentives have ballooned into open-ended giveaways, with Texas' projected tax losses surpassing $1 billion and Virginia now dedicating nearly half of its economic development incentives to data centers.I argue that states should not abandon data center investment but must start demanding more in return. That means linking tax breaks to responsible energy use, such as locating facilities near stranded renewable power or requiring dry cooling and on-site energy storage. These measures would mitigate the strain on local water and power systems, especially since AI data centers use far more energy than traditional ones and often during peak demand hours.The current model rewards scale rather than innovation or job creation, essentially turning data center exemptions into bottomless credits for big tech firms. Many states don't even track the actual cost of these subsidies, creating a feedback loop of growing losses and minimal scrutiny. I call for stronger transparency and for aligning data center growth with public interests—especially as AI infrastructure becomes embedded in state economies. Without intervention, we risk reinforcing outdated, inefficient policy frameworks just as computing becomes more powerful and energy-intensive.AI Boom Should Prompt States to Rein in Data Center Tax Losses 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

In this case, the court considered these issues:1. Can a nonparty challenge a federal agency's “final order” under the Hobbs Act's judicial review provision? 2. Do federal nuclear laws allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private companies to store spent nuclear fuel at off-reactor sites?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that a facility to store spent nuclear fuel at a private off-site location requires a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and only parties to the Commission's licensing proceeding may obtain judicial review of the licensing decision under the Hobbs Act. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.The Hobbs Act provides that any “party aggrieved” by a Commission licensing order may seek judicial review in federal court. The Atomic Energy Act establishes how one becomes a party to a Commission licensing proceeding: a person must either be the license applicant or successfully intervene by requesting a hearing and being admitted as a party by the Commission. Simply submitting comments on a draft environmental impact statement does not confer party status, just as filing an amicus brief in court does not make one a party to the case. When the Commission denies a petition to intervene, that decision itself is subject to judicial review, but the denied petitioner cannot later challenge the underlying licensing decision.The narrow exception for ultra vires review—where an agency acts entirely outside its delegated powers—does not apply here. This exception requires agency action that violates a specific statutory prohibition, not merely a disagreement about statutory interpretation. Additionally, ultra vires review is unavailable when adequate statutory review exists, as it does here through the ability to appeal intervention denials and, for successful intervenors, to challenge final licensing orders.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, arguing that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act explicitly prohibits storage of spent nuclear fuel anywhere except at reactor sites or federally owned facilities, and that Texas and Fasken qualified as parties under the Hobbs Act because they participated in the environmental review portion of the NRC's licensing proceeding.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: In cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that falls under the Seventh Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.PLRA exhaustion operates as a standard affirmative defense subject to the usual practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The usual practice requires factual disputes regarding legal claims to go to a jury, even when a judge could ordinarily resolve such questions independently. Because Congress legislates against the backdrop of established common-law adjudicatory principles, and because the PLRA remains silent on whether judges or juries should resolve exhaustion disputes, this silence constitutes strong evidence that courts should follow the usual practice of sending factual disputes to juries when they are intertwined with the merits.At the time Congress enacted the PLRA in 1996, well-established precedent required that factual disputes intertwined with Seventh Amendment claims go to juries. Two lines of cases support this principle. First, in cases involving both legal and equitable claims, Beacon Theatres established that judges may not resolve equitable claims first if doing so could prevent legal claims from reaching a jury, because judicial discretion must preserve jury trial rights wherever possible. Second, in subject matter jurisdiction cases like Smithers v Smith and Land v Dollar, courts may not resolve factual disputes when those disputes are intertwined with the merits, as this would risk deciding the controversy's substance without ordinary trial procedures, including the right to a jury. When the PLRA was enacted, the usual federal court practice across various contexts involved resolving factual disputes intertwined with the merits at the merits stage itself.Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh, arguing that the majority's statutory interpretation contravenes basic principles because the PLRA's silence cannot confer a jury trial right, and that the jury trial right under the Seventh Amendment does not depend on factual overlap between threshold issues and the merits.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In recent days, the spotlight has been on President Donald Trump, particularly in relation to a significant Supreme Court ruling. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that has profound implications for Trump's efforts to alter U.S. citizenship policies. The court ruled in favor of limiting federal judges from issuing universal injunctions, which had been used to block Trump's executive order aimed at redefining birthright citizenship. This executive order, known as Executive Order No. 14160, outlines specific circumstances under which a person born in the United States might not automatically qualify for citizenship.The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc. was a 6-3 split, with justices Barrett, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh forming the majority. The ruling allows the Trump administration to proceed with its plans to modify long-standing U.S. citizenship rules, although it does so by narrowing the scope of preliminary injunctions that were previously granted by lower courts. These injunctions had been entered by courts in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts, among others, in response to lawsuits filed by individuals, organizations, and states seeking to block the implementation of Trump's order.Despite this ruling, the legal challenges to Trump's policies continue. The decision has been met with dissenting opinions from Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, who expressed concerns about the potential impact on the rights of individuals and the role of federal courts in checking executive power. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, these developments are likely to shape the ongoing debate over executive authority and immigration policy.As we look ahead to the next week, more updates on these court trials and their implications are expected. Thank you for tuning in today to stay informed about these significant legal developments. Join us again next week for more updates and analysis on the ongoing court cases involving Donald Trump.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education?The case was decided on June 12, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Schoolchildren bringing claims related to their education under either Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are not required to make a heightened showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was amended in 1986, Congress explicitly declared that nothing in the IDEA “shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under” the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, or other federal laws protecting disabled children's rights. This provision directly repudiates judicial attempts to create special barriers for educational discrimination claims. The Eighth Circuit's rule requiring schoolchildren to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment”—rather than the standard deliberate indifference required in other disability contexts—artificially limits disabled students' ability to vindicate their rights under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Neither statute's text suggests that educational services claims deserve different treatment than other disability discrimination claims. Both laws use expansive language applying protections to “any person” alleging discrimination, without distinction based on the type of claim.The heightened standard originated in 1982 when the Eighth Circuit attempted to “harmonize” the IDEA with the Rehabilitation Act, reasoning that courts should defer to educators unless they departed grossly from professional standards. This Court made a similar harmonization attempt in 1984, holding the IDEA was the exclusive remedy for educational claims, but Congress swiftly overturned that decision. The Eighth Circuit's continued application of its heightened standard conflicts with Congress's clear directive that the IDEA does not limit other federal antidiscrimination laws. By imposing a higher burden of proof for educational claims compared to other disability discrimination contexts, courts effectively read the IDEA as restricting the independent rights and remedies that Title II and Section 504 provide to disabled children.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, suggesting the Court should consider in a future case whether intent to discriminate must be proven for all ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, not just educational ones.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphasizing that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require no showing of improper purpose or animus because discrimination against people with disabilities often results from thoughtlessness rather than malice.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Join rheumatology experts Dr. John J. Cush and Dr. Arthur Kavanaugh for the EULAR Rheumatology RoundUp — a dynamic, fast-paced discussion capturing the most impactful highlights, late-breaking data, and clinical takeaways from EULAR 2025.

In this episode of the Growth Now Movement, I welcome back my friend Justin “Coach Kav” Kavanaugh for his fourth appearance—a deep dive into his evolution from coaching Olympic sprinters to scaling businesses and acquiring companies. With more than 20 years of elite coaching under his belt, Kav has guided some of the world's fastest athletes—including Olympic gold medalists and world-record holders—and transformed that experience into a high-impact business model. We explore how Kav seamlessly integrates high-performance athletic principles from the track into boardrooms and business-building. He shares how he shifted from grueling hours of speed training to intentionally designing businesses that run without constant oversight—because the real win is in time and financial freedom, not just growth.

I once believed that the worst thing that could happen to this country was to have a Conservative Supreme Court. That was supposed to be the end of everything. I would scream those words into the abyss all through 2016 to anyone who didn't want to vote for Hillary Clinton, “THE SUPREME COURT.”I grew up on the Left, after all, and nothing scared us more than Christianity in our schools, in our corporations, institutions, and in our courts. If Trump won, he would appoint Conservative Christians to the highest court in the land, and that would be the end of Roe v. Wade, the end of the feminist movement, and women's rights.Well, it turns out, we didn't need Conservative Christians to do that. The Left did it all on their own, leaving just one right in place, the right to terminate a pregnancy, or, if you prefer, kill our babies. We use soft language like “choice” and “terminate” as though that changes the reality.Now that the Left has been assured that the pace of abortion did not slow down and women can use abortion like reproductive bulimia - have fun now, deal with the problem later - they've moved on to more pressing matters.I don't think abortion should be illegal. But you know what should be? “Gender-affirming care” for minors. That is the most grotesque example of soft language ever invented by my former side. Call it what it is - sterilization. Top surgery is a double mastectomy. Bottom surgery is castration.In all the ways I feared religion and Christianity infiltrating our schools and institutions has now been left in the dust by a dangerous, fanatical, unstoppable cult that has left too many young men and women destroyed and mutilated in its wake.What a fool I was. Now, I am so grateful for Conservative Christians. I'm so grateful to Donald Trump, who put them on the court. I am glad we lost, even if I didn't know that in 2016. Now I do. Now I can see.Because Hillary Clinton lost, we did not get control of the court. And thank God for that. Because if we had, there is no way the bill from Tennessee to ban “gender affirming care” would have been upheld.Like everyone else on my former side, I was convinced Trump's win in 2016 would end everything we held dear, especially the Supreme Court. We'd been fighting with the Right for years to get control of it. We watched Merrick Garland's appointment obstructed, and we fumed.After Trump won, we became an unhinged, hysterical, angry mob of women who felt it was our right to convict Justice Kavanaugh of rape in the court of public opinion.And to demonize and depict Amy Coney Barrett as the Handmaid.But what I know now that I did not know back in 2016 was that when a society excuses and allows for the young to be sterilized, that's when the bottom drops out, whether it's Eugenics or “gender affirming care.” I didn't see the problem. I was comfortable with the soft language of the Left. We were the good people standing up for marginalized groups.It took me years to realize just how insane the Left had become. But it's one thing if it's just about cancel culture, destroying Hollywood, comedy, art, and book publishing. It's a whole other thing if we're allowing irreversible harm to be done to the minds and bodies of children.But thankfully, God invented Conservatives and they rose to do what we could not, just as they did back before the Civil War to end slavery and for the same reason — they believed it was morally wrong. Now, they are back to stop the Democrats from doing something morally wrong. It's the Christian Right yet again that is on the right side of history.I'm not a religious person, though I wish I could be. I imagine there is relief in that connection to something more powerful than yourself, and maybe that is what so many of these young people need, not “gender-affirming care.” This de-transitioner realized she was made in God's image, which helped her find her way out.I always believed religion was dangerous and destructive. But whatever I thought about religion, and whatever the Left thinks about it now, it can't touch what madness has been manifested by the Left. Look at what they've done.Christianity, we all believed, was the source of bigotry against gays and lesbians. We wanted no part of that. I still don't. But today, I am grateful that they have been fighting this fight because I do not think we could have done it without them.Matt Walsh has been relentless. He's not only reported on the horrors of “gender-affirming care” on his show but also appeared in town halls and government, and helped push the fight in Tennessee to ban the practice. He deserves much credit today.It's ironic, isn't it, that it has been left up to many Conservative Christians to state biological reality. Growing up, I was on that side, and they weren't. Now, the Left has pulled so far into madness that the Conservative Christians are the more pragmatic side.They lock arms with independent thinkers who function as the sane middle, like Colin Wright, Andrew Doyle, Gays Against Groomers, Christina Buttons, and Peter Boghossian:The forces that oppose them are powerful, as this statement by the American Psychological Association shows. But the resistance forces are stronger.The Democrats are collectively too stupid to understand that this is not the hill to die on.The Climate of Fear This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sashastone.substack.com/subscribe

The Supreme Court left lower courts somewhat in the lurch in its recent Bruen decision; last year, in Rahimi, it attempted to clarify matters.  Now an assault weapons case reaches the Court, Snope v. Brown, but the Court declines to hear it.  Nevertheless, Justice Kavanaugh, though agreeing with the denial of cert, writes a commentary which calls for another, unspecified case to be heard in the near future, and he gives an indication of how he might approach it.  We see this as in line with earlier writing he did in Bruen, but there are many unanswered questions in what seems like an intention to utilize a straightforward reasoning.  We raise many of these questions, and in doing so, offer our readers a look back at the path gun cases have taken to get to this point, and a look ahead in the hope that some of these heretofore unresolved issues are given their due; that the Justices "count to ten," before the Court takes what might be too headstrong a path forward.  Lawyers and judges can obtain CLE credit by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, including the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Mexico case, insights from Justice Kavanaugh regarding future cases, and Citigroup's policy shift on financing gun manufacturers. The conversation emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and self-defense rights, along with legislative updates that impact gun ownership and usage. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun control, including the illogical nature of gun-free zones, the persistent efforts of the Democratic Party to impose stricter gun regulations, and the potential for North Carolina to become the 30th state to adopt constitutional carry. The conversation also touches on legislative battles in Arizona, the rise of communism within the Democratic Party, and the need to debunk myths surrounding mass shootings. Additionally, the segment covers the recent Mexico vs. Smith & Wesson case, highlighting the implications of the PLCAA and the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. The conversation delves into the ongoing legal challenges surrounding civil suits related to gun rights, the political unrest in Los Angeles, and the implications of current immigration policies. The speakers discuss the role of law enforcement in addressing these issues and the broader impact on American society. They emphasize the need for legal accountability and the importance of maintaining law and order in the face of political and social challenges. Takeaways Mark discusses his overnight flight and unexpected expenses. The show is live on multiple platforms including YouTube and Facebook. Mark emphasizes the importance of sharing the broadcast on social media. Alan Gottlieb discusses the implications of the Mexico case ruling. The Supreme Court's decision was a surprising 9-0 in favor of gun manufacturers. Kagan's opinion on common use firearms raises questions for future cases. Kavanaugh hints at future assault weapon cases coming to the court. Citigroup's reversal on financing gun manufacturers is seen as a positive shift. Legislation in Louisiana allows concealed carry during parades for self-defense. Mark stresses the importance of the Second Amendment in protecting freedoms. Gun-free zones are often illogical and arbitrary. The anti-gun left continues to push for stricter regulations. Voters who support Democrats may lose their freedoms. North Carolina is on the verge of becoming a constitutional carry state. Legislators in Arizona face ongoing battles against anti-gun bills. The rise of communism is evident in the current Democratic Party. Democrats often prioritize criminals over victims in legislation. The recent Supreme Court decision in the Mexico case is a significant win for gun rights. Public health surveys on mass shootings can be misleading. The PLCAA is crucial in protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Legal suits can drain resources without clear violations. The predicate exception to PLCAA complicates legal proceedings. Political unrest is often tied to party policies. Democrats are accused of inciting violence for political gain. Law enforcement's role is crucial in maintaining order. The immigration crisis is seen as a national security threat. The left's narrative often projects their failures onto others. The importance of supporting organizations like the NRA is emphasized. The conversation highlights the need for legal reforms. The future of American society hinges on addressing these challenges. Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, Mexico case, Kavanaugh, Citigroup, self-defense, NRA, firearms legislation, legal cases, gun ownership, gun control, constitutional carry, Democratic ideology, mass shootings, Arizona legislation, North Carolina, Second Amendment, communism, PLCAA, gun-free zones, legal challenges, civil suits, political unrest,

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, including the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Mexico case, insights from Justice Kavanaugh regarding future cases, and Citigroup's policy shift on financing gun manufacturers. The conversation emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and self-defense rights, along with legislative updates that impact gun ownership and usage. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun control, including the illogical nature of gun-free zones, the persistent efforts of the Democratic Party to impose stricter gun regulations, and the potential for North Carolina to become the 30th state to adopt constitutional carry. The conversation also touches on legislative battles in Arizona, the rise of communism within the Democratic Party, and the need to debunk myths surrounding mass shootings. Additionally, the segment covers the recent Mexico vs. Smith & Wesson case, highlighting the implications of the PLCAA and the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. The conversation delves into the ongoing legal challenges surrounding civil suits related to gun rights, the political unrest in Los Angeles, and the implications of current immigration policies. The speakers discuss the role of law enforcement in addressing these issues and the broader impact on American society. They emphasize the need for legal accountability and the importance of maintaining law and order in the face of political and social challenges. Takeaways Mark discusses his overnight flight and unexpected expenses. The show is live on multiple platforms including YouTube and Facebook. Mark emphasizes the importance of sharing the broadcast on social media. Alan Gottlieb discusses the implications of the Mexico case ruling. The Supreme Court's decision was a surprising 9-0 in favor of gun manufacturers. Kagan's opinion on common use firearms raises questions for future cases. Kavanaugh hints at future assault weapon cases coming to the court. Citigroup's reversal on financing gun manufacturers is seen as a positive shift. Legislation in Louisiana allows concealed carry during parades for self-defense. Mark stresses the importance of the Second Amendment in protecting freedoms. Gun-free zones are often illogical and arbitrary. The anti-gun left continues to push for stricter regulations. Voters who support Democrats may lose their freedoms. North Carolina is on the verge of becoming a constitutional carry state. Legislators in Arizona face ongoing battles against anti-gun bills. The rise of communism is evident in the current Democratic Party. Democrats often prioritize criminals over victims in legislation. The recent Supreme Court decision in the Mexico case is a significant win for gun rights. Public health surveys on mass shootings can be misleading. The PLCAA is crucial in protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Legal suits can drain resources without clear violations. The predicate exception to PLCAA complicates legal proceedings. Political unrest is often tied to party policies. Democrats are accused of inciting violence for political gain. Law enforcement's role is crucial in maintaining order. The immigration crisis is seen as a national security threat. The left's narrative often projects their failures onto others. The importance of supporting organizations like the NRA is emphasized. The conversation highlights the need for legal reforms. The future of American society hinges on addressing these challenges. Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, Mexico case, Kavanaugh, Citigroup, self-defense, NRA, firearms legislation, legal cases, gun ownership, gun control, constitutional carry, Democratic ideology, mass shootings, Arizona legislation, North Carolina, Second Amendment, communism, PLCAA, gun-free zones, legal challenges, civil suits, political unrest,

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, including the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Mexico case, insights from Justice Kavanaugh regarding future cases, and Citigroup's policy shift on financing gun manufacturers. The conversation emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and self-defense rights, along with legislative updates that impact gun ownership and usage. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun control, including the illogical nature of gun-free zones, the persistent efforts of the Democratic Party to impose stricter gun regulations, and the potential for North Carolina to become the 30th state to adopt constitutional carry. The conversation also touches on legislative battles in Arizona, the rise of communism within the Democratic Party, and the need to debunk myths surrounding mass shootings. Additionally, the segment covers the recent Mexico vs. Smith & Wesson case, highlighting the implications of the PLCAA and the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. The conversation delves into the ongoing legal challenges surrounding civil suits related to gun rights, the political unrest in Los Angeles, and the implications of current immigration policies. The speakers discuss the role of law enforcement in addressing these issues and the broader impact on American society. They emphasize the need for legal accountability and the importance of maintaining law and order in the face of political and social challenges. Takeaways Mark discusses his overnight flight and unexpected expenses. The show is live on multiple platforms including YouTube and Facebook. Mark emphasizes the importance of sharing the broadcast on social media. Alan Gottlieb discusses the implications of the Mexico case ruling. The Supreme Court's decision was a surprising 9-0 in favor of gun manufacturers. Kagan's opinion on common use firearms raises questions for future cases. Kavanaugh hints at future assault weapon cases coming to the court. Citigroup's reversal on financing gun manufacturers is seen as a positive shift. Legislation in Louisiana allows concealed carry during parades for self-defense. Mark stresses the importance of the Second Amendment in protecting freedoms. Gun-free zones are often illogical and arbitrary. The anti-gun left continues to push for stricter regulations. Voters who support Democrats may lose their freedoms. North Carolina is on the verge of becoming a constitutional carry state. Legislators in Arizona face ongoing battles against anti-gun bills. The rise of communism is evident in the current Democratic Party. Democrats often prioritize criminals over victims in legislation. The recent Supreme Court decision in the Mexico case is a significant win for gun rights. Public health surveys on mass shootings can be misleading. The PLCAA is crucial in protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Legal suits can drain resources without clear violations. The predicate exception to PLCAA complicates legal proceedings. Political unrest is often tied to party policies. Democrats are accused of inciting violence for political gain. Law enforcement's role is crucial in maintaining order. The immigration crisis is seen as a national security threat. The left's narrative often projects their failures onto others. The importance of supporting organizations like the NRA is emphasized. The conversation highlights the need for legal reforms. The future of American society hinges on addressing these challenges. Keywords Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, Mexico case, Kavanaugh, Citigroup, self-defense, NRA, firearms legislation, legal cases, gun ownership, gun control, constitutional carry, Democratic ideology, mass shootings, Arizona legislation, North Carolina, Second Amendment, communism, PLCAA, gun-free zones, legal challenges, civil suits,

[EP 25-227] We are being lied to on a major scale. When people can openly, blatantly lie, and expect you to believe it, you know you are in the matrix.It takes massive guts to do the work that some of us do. I have many friends, brilliant minds who spend most of their time trying to survive. The Left sucks the life out of them reducing them to subsistence.I'm one of them. When I told the truth about the Kavanaugh accuser skanks my world changed dramatically. Instead of getting a Fox News show and making millions of dollars, Fox blacklisted me, and actually tried to ruin me.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-kevin-jackson-show--2896352/support.

In 2010, digital tools for journalists were emerging, but the gritty, time-intensive methods of traditional reporting still dominated newsrooms. The disappearance of 7-year-old Kyron Horman from his Portland elementary school thrust The Oregonian's journalists into a high-stakes investigation that demanded old-school techniques now increasingly rare in today's fast-paced media environment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the recent Supreme Court decision regarding gun control, expressing frustration over the court's refusal to hear significant cases that could impact Second Amendment rights. He is joined by Lee Williams, who shares his insights on the implications of these rulings and the ongoing challenges faced by gun owners. The conversation also touches on the disturbing case of a fabricated school shooting, highlighting the lengths to which some individuals will go to promote anti-gun narratives. The episode concludes with a call to action for listeners to remain vigilant and engaged in the fight for their rights. Takeaways The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Maryland assault weapon ban case leaves gun rights vulnerable in the Fourth Circuit. Kavanaugh's comments suggest that the court may address gun rights issues soon, but the delay is frustrating for advocates. The emotional impact of the Supreme Court's decisions on gun owners is significant, as many feel their rights are being ignored. The anti-gun movement often embraces individuals with questionable claims, as seen in the case of the fabricated school shooting. The importance of verifying claims made by individuals advocating for gun control is crucial to maintaining credibility. The conversation emphasizes the need for continued advocacy and support for Second Amendment rights. Mark Walters expresses confidence that the right case will eventually reach the Supreme Court and lead to a favorable outcome for gun owners. The episode highlights the role of organizations like the NRA in fighting for gun rights and the importance of membership. Listeners are encouraged to stay informed and engaged in the ongoing battle for their constitutional rights. The discussion underscores the psychological factors that may drive individuals to fabricate stories for attention or advocacy. Keywords gun control, Supreme Court, Second Amendment, anti-gun activism, school shooting, Armed American Radio, Mark Walters, Lee Williams, NRA, constitutional rights  

The integrity of girls’ sports over the weekend took a big blow as transgender athletes beat out girls at high school competitions all across the country. Enumclaw High School is on high alert after two suspects broke in. Former socialist Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant announced she is running for Congress against Adam Smith. // LongForm: GUEST: Guy Benson on the antisemitic terrorist attack in Boulder and how media covered it so poorly. // Quick Hit: Trump wants SCOTUS to strike down a lower court judge’s block on government layoffs. Justice Kavanaugh hinted that the court might issue a ruling on the constitutionality of bans on a very popular rifle.

While on its face the Supreme Court just apparently dealt a set back to assault weapon gun owners in America by allowing for now a Maryland ban on AR15 assault rifles and a Rhode Island ban on high capacity magazines to remain in effect, there are warning signs in both orders that the MAGA right— led by Thomas and Kavanaugh — is prepared in the next term to find that people have a 2nd Amendment Right to bear AR15s. Michael Popok takes a close look at the 2 orders to suss out what they mean. Go to https://beekeepersnaturals.com/legalaf or enter code LEGALAF to get 20% off your order. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the recent Supreme Court decision to reject the Maryland assault weapon ban cases. He analyzes the implications of Justice Kavanaugh's statement regarding the Second Amendment and the potential for future legal challenges. The conversation also touches on the dynamics within the Supreme Court and the reactions from gun rights advocates, emphasizing the ongoing struggle for Second Amendment rights in America. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses the implications of recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly focusing on Justice Kavanaugh's statements and the influence of former President Trump on the court's dynamics. The discussion also highlights the role of the NRA in defending gun rights, the popularity of AR-15s among Americans, and the strategic considerations of the Supreme Court in handling gun-related cases. Speculation about the motivations behind Kavanaugh's decisions and the potential impact of upcoming lower court rulings on the Supreme Court's future actions is also explored. Takeaways The Supreme Court's rejection of the Maryland gun ban cases is significant. Justice Kavanaugh's statement indicates potential future challenges to gun bans. The denial of cert does not equate to agreement with lower court decisions. Gun rights advocates express disappointment but remain optimistic about future cases. The dynamics within the Supreme Court are crucial to understanding the outcome of gun rights cases. The Second Amendment is viewed as a right that is currently being denied. Patience is necessary as the legal landscape evolves regarding gun rights. The conversation highlights the importance of the NRA in the current political climate. Future cases regarding AR-15s are expected to come before the Supreme Court soon. The discussion emphasizes the need for engagement from gun owners and advocates. Kavanaugh's statement indicates a complex position on gun rights. The NRA's influence remains crucial in the current political climate. The popularity of AR-15s complicates potential gun bans. Speculation surrounds Kavanaugh's motivations for denying certiorari. The Supreme Court's strategy may involve waiting for lower court decisions. Trump's influence on the Supreme Court is still felt today. The left's agenda includes significant gun control measures. Kavanaugh's dissent signals potential future decisions on gun rights. The timing of Supreme Court decisions is critical to their impact. The conversation emphasizes the importance of NRA membership in defending freedoms. Keywords Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, Supreme Court, gun rights, Maryland gun ban, Kavanaugh, NRA, legal challenges, firearms, constitutional rights, Supreme Court, Kavanaugh, NRA, gun rights, AR-15, certiorari, Trump, dissent, judicial strategy, Barrett  

Armed American Radio's Mark Walters joins Cam to discuss the bitterly disappointing decision by SCOTUS to deny cert to a challenge to Maryland's ban on "assault weapons", with Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggesting that the Court will take up another case down the road, perhaps in a term or two.

 It's Friday, May 30th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Christian burials denied in Odisha State, India In mid-May, villagers in Odisha State, India opposed the burial of a deceased Christian, reports International Christian Concern. Their claim? A Christian funeral would defile the gods and the land of the village. Sadly, authorities were unable to convince villagers to allow the burial, and the body was taken to another location. Although Christian burials have long been denied in India, these denials are increasingly occurring as a method of persecuting Christians in Odisha State. Three independent investigations conducted in Odisha between March and April pointed to an alarming rise in the number of Christians denied burial rights. The investigations concluded that the absence of state laws allocating burial land for Christians has enabled the trend. FBI investigates leaked Dobbs Supreme Court ruling FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino announced Monday that he and FBI Director Kash Patel are going to “re-open” an investigation into the consequential 2022 leak of the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, reports Life News. On May 2, 2022, Politico published a draft of a Supreme Court opinion, authored in February by Justice Samuel Alito, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The official ruling was not released until June 24, 2022. The draft opinion made it evident that the Supreme Court was all but certain to rule in favor of the Mississippi pro-life law at the center of the case. A majority of justices on the Supreme Court were prepared to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision which had extended broad federal legal protections to the practice of abortion. Politico cited a “person familiar with the court's deliberations” to confirm that Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett had already voted in favor of Alito's opinion following oral arguments in December of 2021, yielding a five-justice majority to strike down Roe and Casey, as the pro-abortion precedents are known. Pro-abortion activists made clear that they intended to target pro-life pregnancy resource centers and Catholic parishes in response to the Dobbs leak. Indeed, more than 100 pro-life centers and churches were firebombed, smashed, ransacked, or vandalized with pro-abortion graffiti and threatening messages, reported Fox News.   Then, five weeks after the Dobbs leak, but before the official ruling was announced, a man flew from California to D.C. with the intention of going on a killing spree. His target? The pro-life Supreme Court justices. Nicholas Roske went to Kavanaugh's house first located in Montgomery County, Maryland. He was armed with a pistol and equipped with gear to break into the justice's house undetected. Appeals court paused block of Trump's retaliatory tariffs A federal appeals court granted the Trump administration's request to temporarily pause the Wednesday ruling of the  U.S. Court of International Trade which struck down most of President Donald Trump's tariffs, reports CNBC. The judges of the trade court had found that the 1970s-era law Trump had invoked to enact those tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, does not “confer such unbounded authority” to presidents. The nationwide, permanent block they imposed covered all of the retaliatory tariffs that Trump issued in early April as part of his sweeping “Liberation Day” plan to reshape international trade with the rest of the world. Without a doubt, the Wednesday ruling destabilized a pillar of Trump's economic agenda. Illinois House approves physician-assisted suicide bill And finally, on Thursday, the Illinois House narrowly passed a controversial physician-assisted suicide bill (SB 1950 Amendment 2) by a vote of 63 to 42, with two members cowardly voting “present,” reports the Illinois Family Institute. Oddly enough, 11 state representatives did not cast a vote on the legislation. David Smith, the Executive Director, prayed this prayer on a video which was shared with fellow Christians. SMITH: “I pray, Lord, that many of these lawmakers who are on the fence would choose to err on the side of life and not on death. Lord, I pray that your people would rise up throughout the state of Illinois. I pray that many church leaders would speak up and let their state lawmakers know that this is unacceptable. Illinois should never accept or normalize suicide!” At its April 2025 annual meeting, the Illinois State Medical Society overwhelmingly voted to oppose legalizing physician-assisted suicide. This decision reflects the stance of most Illinois doctors against prescribing lethal medications. They took an oath to do no harm and certainly not to provide the means for their patients to end their lives. If you live in Illinois, send an email to your State Senator here. Scripture tells us that every person is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and thus each life holds immeasurable value. Moreover, Exodus 20:13 records this command: "Thou shall not murder." Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, May 30th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

We've made it to casual Friday folks! The Supreme Court had a field day yesterday with the Trump administration's attorney over their executive order to revoke birthright citizenship. Several of the justices, including conservatives, seemed to reject the argument that circuit court injunctions should only apply to the specific case in question. After that, the Nation's Jeet Heer is here to break down all the week's highlights (and lowlights), including Trump's trip to the Middle East, the GOP spending bill and the Democratic Party's lack of willingness to address concerns over Biden's age when it counted. Check out Jeet's writing at The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/authors/jeet-heer/ And his podcast The Time of Monsters: https://www.thenation.com/content/time-of-monsters/ In the Fun Half, Sam and Emma go deeper into the Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship, mainly a question Bret Kavanaugh asked about how such a policy would even be implemented. Would expecting mothers have to pass a customs checkpoint to enter the maternity ward? Or maybe all maternity wards would have to be inside of detention centers so the government can adjudicate each baby's immigration status after they're born. Kid Rock says that liberal women are ugly. Ok dude. And towards the end of the show, Sam, Emma Kuwalski from Nebraska and a few other listeners do a bit of a post-mortem on Sam's conversation with Ezra Klein. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Mankura: Get $25 off your Starter Kit by going to manukora.com/majority  Nutrafol: Get $10 off your first month's subscription + free shipping at Nutrafol.com when you use promo code TMR10 Sunset Lake CBD: Use coupon code “Left Is Best” (all one word) for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @RussFinkelstein Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder – https://majorityreportradio.com/