Podcasts about Legal defense fund

It's been another extraordinary week in the ongoing saga of Donald Trump's court battles—one that has seen major developments on multiple legal fronts as the former president continues to dominate headlines and court dockets. I want to take you right into the action of the past few days and give you a sense of just how frenetic, and consequential, these court proceedings have become.Just days ago, the Supreme Court handed a significant victory to Donald Trump's administration by allowing his executive order for sweeping reductions in the federal workforce to move forward for now. This order, issued back in February, directed government agencies to prepare for mass layoffs—so-called “reductions in force”—across the federal bureaucracy. Labor unions, local governments, and advocacy groups were quick to challenge it, concerned about the potential dismantling of large swaths of government operations. Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco initially blocked Trump's plan, but the justices, in a brief opinion, sided with the administration, at least temporarily. The order remains in effect pending appeals, and the Supreme Court's decision, with only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, means federal agencies are once again on notice to prepare for significant changes. Justice Jackson, in her 15-page dissent, warned of “irreparable harm” to the structure of the federal government if Trump's plan is executed before the courts fully resolve the legal questions.Meanwhile, another Trump executive action faced a major legal setback. In New Hampshire, a federal court blocked Trump's attempt to restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the United States. Civil rights organizations including the ACLU and Legal Defense Fund challenged Trump's executive order just days after a Supreme Court ruling that had opened the door for partial enforcement of the controversial policy. On July 10, the federal judge not only issued a preliminary injunction halting the order but also certified a nationwide class to ensure all affected children are protected. According to Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, this ruling reaffirmed the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for all babies born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents' status.And that's not all. The New York criminal case against Donald Trump remains active on the court calendars, with a slew of filings, decisions, and orders continuing through this year. Sentencing audio from early January made headlines and provided a rare public window into proceedings that are as closely watched as they are contentious.With each ruling, appeal, and legal maneuver, the stakes grow higher—not just for Donald Trump, but for the nation's legal and political landscape. Whether it's the fate of thousands of federal workers, the citizenship status of newborns, or the outcome of high-profile criminal trials, Trump's time in the courtroom is shaping American life in real time.Thanks for tuning in, and make sure you come back next week for more updates. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for June 30, 2025In Puzzling Move, U.S. Supreme Court Orders Additional Arguments in Louisiana Redistricting Case Pitting VRA Against Equal Protections ClauseThe U.S. Supreme Court was expected to announce an opinion June 27th in Louisiana v. Callais, one of the most important voting rights cases of the year. Instead, in a highly unusual move, the court ordered new arguments in the case pitting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 against the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:The American Redistricting Project - Callais v. LouisianaAmerican Democracy Minute - Will Louisiana v. Callais Be the Latest Blow Against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by SCOTUS?Brennan Center for Justice - Voting Rights Act Returns to the Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme Court - LOUISIANA, APPELLANT 24–109 v. PHILLIP CALLAIS, ET AL. SCOTUS Blog - Supreme Court punts decision on Louisiana's congressional map to next term NPR - Where the Voting Rights Act stands after the Supreme Court punts on a Louisiana caseGroups Taking Action:ACLU, Legal Defense Fund, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice Register or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #FairMaps #VRA #Louisiana #LouisianaVCallais #USSupremeCourt

It is meaningful and instructive that the Legal Defense Fund, which has championed racial justice at the voting booth, in education, housing and in the criminal justice system since its founding by Thurgood Marshall in 1940, is on the frontlines today, winning legal victories in a perilous moment for American democracy. LDF is defending the hard-won civil rights of Black Americans against racially imposed barriers, laid out in Project 2025 and implemented by President Trump and the 119th Congress. As LDF Associate Director-Counsel Todd Cox explains on this episode of Power Station, Congress has abdicated its responsibility as a check on the executive and the U.S. Department of Justice has rejected its mandate to enforce civil rights laws, leaving the LDF and its sister organizations to carry out the fight in the courts. LDF brings the expertise and infrastructure needed to litigate, advocate in state legislatures and on Capitol Hill, organize in impacted communities and educate the public and policymakers about what is at stake. Todd, a consummate civil rights litigator, looks to his grandparents, who fled autocracy and racial violence in the south, as his inspiration and guide. Hear him and share this powerful story.

Today we're diving into the sixth of our eight-part series, exploring how nonprofits champion democracy and protect voting rights. We'll unpack the strategies these organizations use to advocate for democratic participation while operating within the law. This conversation feels especially urgent as we see acceleration to challenges to voting rights and democratic institutions in 2025.   Attorneys for this episode   Tim Mooney  Natalie Ossenfort Susan Finkle Sourlis    Shownotes Current Events / Executive Orders ·      Trump Administration Directives on Voting & Civil Rights o   Disbanded the DOJ Voting Rights Section's Election Monitoring Program. o   Rescinded Biden executive order promoting federal agency voter registration partnerships o   Halted implementation of interagency plans for voter access through social service agencies, and redirecting the Election Assistance Commission to implement draconian requirements outside the scope of its mission his authority over it. ·      Impact on Vulnerable Communities o   Revoked supporting access to the ballot for voters with disabilities and non-English speakers. o   Pressured USPS to deprioritize ballot delivery during election periods and issued an EO that attempts to reject mail in ballots postmarked on Election Day but received afterward.   Nonlobbying Advocacy Although you may consider this an off year for federal elections (but many local and state elections are happening this year)  – now is the time to work to ensure the protection of voting rights for the future. Advocacy can take many forms, lobbying is just one form. There are many ways organizations can advocate for change to ensure democracy and voting rights are secure. Organizing, educating the public, conducting research, executive branch and regulatory activities, working with your local state board of elections, trainings and litigation just to name a few way.   Here are some ways organizations have undertake ·      Educate the Public o   Democracy North Carolina launched a digital explainer on redistricting and gerrymandering for community audiences, and engaged in election protection work. This included monitoring polling stations for long lines, problems with voting, voting misinformation. ·      Hold a Rally or Event o   Detroit Action organized “Halloween Early Vote,” a trunk or treat in a historically underrepresented part of Detroit, promoting civic pride, early voting… and candy. ·      Litigation as Advocacy o   Campaign Legal Center and Southern Poverty Law Center sued Louisiana for new proof of citizenship documentation as a violation of federal law. o   League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters Education Fund, the Democratic National Committee and others sued to overturn Trump's federal elections executive order, successfully enjoining some of the more egregious parts of it. Foundation-Funded Advocacy ·      Public and private foundations can fund 501(c)(3) nonpartisan voter engagement activities that do not support or oppose candidates for public office. ·      Special rules for private foundations re: voter registration drives (grants must be for nonpartisan VR drives conducted in 5 or more states over multiple election cycles), but community foundations can fund VR even for small, local, grassroots organizations. ·      Ford Foundation and Carnegie Corporation of New York have supported nonpartisan voter education and rights litigation to strengthen democracy and public trust in government.   Lobbying ·      Legislative Wins o   New York: Enacted the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, pushed through with support from a coalition including Legal Defense Fund and Citizen Action of NY o   New Mexico: Passed legislation mandating automatic and same-day voter registration following lobbying by ProgressNow NM and allies. ·      Ballot Measures Protecting Voting Rights o   Michigan Proposal 2 (2022): Guaranteed early voting and drop boxes; supported by Voters Not Politicians and League of Women Voters of Michigan. o   Arizona: Local advocates, including Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), defeated multiple voter suppression ballot initiatives. o   Nevada: Voters passed automatic voter registration (2018) and expanded it further in 2022 with strong nonprofit support. Resources ·      Democracy & Equity: The Advocacy Playbook for Democracy and Voting Rights ·      Public Charities Can Lobby (Factsheet) ·      Practical Guidance: what your nonprofit needs to know about lobbying in your state ·      Investing in Change: A Funder's Guide to Supporting Advocacy ·      What is Advocacy? 2.0 ·      Seize the initiative

Thursday, June 5th, 2025Today, Judge Xinis grants a motion to unseal Abrego Garcia documents and grants his lawyers their motion to file for sanctions against Trump's stonewalling; economists are raising questions about the validity of US inflation data; the President has enacted 50% steel tariffs and then quickly TACOed them for the UK; a federal judge has tossed the Democratic Party lawsuit challenging Trump's FEC order; the Tennessee assistant district attorney has been charged with assaulting woman multiple times; a federal appeals court refuses to lift the block on mass layoffs at the Department of Education; young Democrat Kieshan Scott trounces his Republican opponent winning a South Carolina state house seat; South Korea's liberal party candidate won the snap election Tuesday; the Trump administration rescinds the Biden era policy requiring hospitals to provide reproductive emergency health care; Kennedy center subscription sales fall 36% since Trump took over; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Today's show is brought to you by Whistleblower Aid: a non-profit created and run by whistleblowers who are the bulwark for the truth-tellers who step forward to save our republic. Support their work by visiting whistlebloweraid.org/beansThank You, PiqueGet 20% off on the Radiant Skin Duo, plus a FREE starter kit at Piquelife.com/dailybeansMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueCheck out Dana's social media campaign highlighting LGBTQ+ heroes every day during Pride Month -  Dana Goldberg (@dgcomedy.bsky.social)Guest: Miles TaylorEnd Presidential Revenge .orgMiles Taylor (@MilesTaylorUSA) / TwitterReadBlowback Miles Taylor | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster StoriesEconomists Raise Questions About Quality of U.S. Inflation Data | The Wall Street JournalUK temporarily spared from Trump's 50% steel tariffs | BBCTrump administration rescinds policy requiring emergency abortion care | The Washington PostJudge tosses Democratic Party challenge to Trump order's impact on FEC | POLITICOTennessee assistant district attorney charged with assaulting woman multiple times | FOX 17 WZTV NashvilleFederal appeals court refuses to lift ruling halting mass layoffs at Department of Education | CNN PoliticsLiberal Lee Jae-myung wins South Korea presidency in martial law 'judgement day' | ReutersKennedy Center subscription sales fall 36 percent from previous year | The Washington PostGood TroubleYou can Join red wine and blue to learn how to effectively build local support in your community and the tactics you can use for success at Red Wine & BlueProton Mail: free email account with privacy and encryptionFind Upcoming Demonstrations And ActionsSat June 14 10am – 12pm PDT AG is hosting NO KINGS Waterfront Park, San DiegoDonation link - secure.actblue.com/donate/fuelthemovement250th Anniversary of the U.S. Army Grand Military Parade and CelebrationSchedule F comments deadline extended to June 7th Federal Register :: Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service50501 MovementJune 14th Nationwide Demonstrations - NoKings.orgIndivisible.orgFrom The Good NewsHegseth orders Navy strip oiler ship USNS Harvey Milk of nameSSA.govPot Smoking Atheists Who Love Dogs Facebook Group (updated)Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good Trouble Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

In Chambers v. Florida and the Criminal Justice Revolution, historian and former ABA Journal reporter Richard Brust lifts the veil on a case that laid the groundwork for some much more famous civil rights victories. On May 13, 1933, shopkeeper Robert Darsey was robbed and murdered in Pompano, Florida. Four Black migrant farm workers—Izell Chambers, Walter Woodard, Jack Williamson and Charlie Davis—were seized and pressured by the local sheriff into confessing to the murder under threat of lynching. Their appeals eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court through the efforts of some dedicated African American attorneys, and succeeded in 1940. In Justice Hugo Black's written opinion for the majority, the justice drew parallels between the Jim Crow regime in the American South and the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in Europe. Chambers v. Florida forbade the use of psychological coercion—such as threatening to turn prisoners over to lynch mobs—as well as physical abuse to extract confessions. The court's ruling declared that the protections of the Bill of Rights extended into states' criminal cases, and began to change the kinds of cases that made it onto the Supreme Court docket.Brust sees it as part of a trio of cases, which includes Moore v. Dempsey (1923) and Brown v. Mississippi (1936), that led to a “criminal procedure revolution,” he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brust discusses the lawyers who worked on the case, most prominently Simuel D. McGill, a Black attorney in Jacksonville. He delves into the generational differences between the Floridian defense lawyers and the attorneys of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund who would go on to win key civil rights battles. He explains why Justice Black would have been considered an unlikely author for this opinion. And he shares what he could discover about the fates of Chambers, Woodard, Williamson and Davis after the trial.

In Chambers v. Florida and the Criminal Justice Revolution, historian and former ABA Journal reporter Richard Brust lifts the veil on a case that laid the groundwork for some much more famous civil rights victories. On May 13, 1933, shopkeeper Robert Darsey was robbed and murdered in Pompano, Florida. Four Black migrant farm workers—Izell Chambers, Walter Woodard, Jack Williamson and Charlie Davis—were seized and pressured by the local sheriff into confessing to the murder under threat of lynching. Their appeals eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court through the efforts of some dedicated African American attorneys, and succeeded in 1940. In Justice Hugo Black's written opinion for the majority, the justice drew parallels between the Jim Crow regime in the American South and the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in Europe. Chambers v. Florida forbade the use of psychological coercion—such as threatening to turn prisoners over to lynch mobs—as well as physical abuse to extract confessions. The court's ruling declared that the protections of the Bill of Rights extended into states' criminal cases, and began to change the kinds of cases that made it onto the Supreme Court docket.Brust sees it as part of a trio of cases, which includes Moore v. Dempsey (1923) and Brown v. Mississippi (1936), that led to a “criminal procedure revolution,” he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brust discusses the lawyers who worked on the case, most prominently Simuel D. McGill, a Black attorney in Jacksonville. He delves into the generational differences between the Floridian defense lawyers and the attorneys of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund who would go on to win key civil rights battles. He explains why Justice Black would have been considered an unlikely author for this opinion. And he shares what he could discover about the fates of Chambers, Woodard, Williamson and Davis after the trial. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Chambers v. Florida and the Criminal Justice Revolution, historian and former ABA Journal reporter Richard Brust lifts the veil on a case that laid the groundwork for some much more famous civil rights victories. On May 13, 1933, shopkeeper Robert Darsey was robbed and murdered in Pompano, Florida. Four Black migrant farm workers—Izell Chambers, Walter Woodard, Jack Williamson and Charlie Davis—were seized and pressured by the local sheriff into confessing to the murder under threat of lynching. Their appeals eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court through the efforts of some dedicated African American attorneys, and succeeded in 1940. In Justice Hugo Black's written opinion for the majority, the justice drew parallels between the Jim Crow regime in the American South and the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in Europe. Chambers v. Florida forbade the use of psychological coercion—such as threatening to turn prisoners over to lynch mobs—as well as physical abuse to extract confessions. The court's ruling declared that the protections of the Bill of Rights extended into states' criminal cases, and began to change the kinds of cases that made it onto the Supreme Court docket.Brust sees it as part of a trio of cases, which includes Moore v. Dempsey (1923) and Brown v. Mississippi (1936), that led to a “criminal procedure revolution,” he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brust discusses the lawyers who worked on the case, most prominently Simuel D. McGill, a Black attorney in Jacksonville. He delves into the generational differences between the Floridian defense lawyers and the attorneys of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund who would go on to win key civil rights battles. He explains why Justice Black would have been considered an unlikely author for this opinion. And he shares what he could discover about the fates of Chambers, Woodard, Williamson and Davis after the trial.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for May 28, 20252020 Mass Challenges of 364,000 Georgia Voters Under Scrutiny by Federal Appeals CourtGeorgia law allows unlimited challenges by voters to the eligibility of other citizens registering or voting. Before a hotly-contested U.S. Senate runoff elections in 2021, an activist group challenged over 364,000 voters.  The case is now before an appeals court. Today's LinksArticles & Resources:Legal Defense Fund - LDF's Lawsuit Challenging Georgia's Voter Suppression LawBrennan Center for Justice - New Georgia Law Spurs Bogus Challenges to Voter EligibilityU.S. District Court via Democracy Docket - 2020 Complaint by Fair Fight Action NBC News - Conservative activists find errors in software they hoped would root out voter fraud Georgia Recorder - Federal court might revive Georgia lawsuit claiming mass challenges violate Voting Rights ActCourt House News - 11th Circuit looks for voter intimidation in 2020 election challenges by conservativesGroups Taking Action:Fair Fight Action, Legal Defense Fund, ACLU GARegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Georgia #VoterSuppression #SB202 #VoterChallenges

4.18.2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Trump lawlessness, DOGE/DOJ target non-profit, Sen. Van Hollen returns, MLK struggles in the North We haven't made it to the first 100 days, and the twice-impeached, criminally convicted felon-in-chief, Donald "The Con" Trump, has unleashing lawlessness. Janai Nelson, the President and Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, will explain that although Trump's tactics aren't new, they can be stopped. According to the nonprofit organization Vera Institute, it was targeted by Trump's DOJ and DOGE, setting a troubling precedent for targeting nonprofits that receive federal funding. Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen just returned from El Salvador, where he finally met Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the father who was wrongfully deported. And I spoke with Jeanne Theoharis about her new book, "King of the North: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Life of Struggle Outside the South." The book focuses on how King's experiences outside the South significantly influenced his campaign for racial justice. #BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (https://bit.ly/3VDPKjD) and Risks (https://bit.ly/3ZQzHl0) related to this offering before investing. Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox http://www.blackstarnetwork.com The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

4.18.2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Trump lawlessness, DOGE/DOJ target non-profit, Sen. Van Hollen returns, MLK struggles in the North We haven't made it to the first 100 days, and the twice-impeached, criminally convicted felon-in-chief, Donald "The Con" Trump, has unleashing lawlessness. Janai Nelson, the President and Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, will explain that although Trump's tactics aren't new, they can be stopped. According to the nonprofit organization Vera Institute, it was targeted by Trump's DOJ and DOGE, setting a troubling precedent for targeting nonprofits that receive federal funding. Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen just returned from El Salvador, where he finally met Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the father who was wrongfully deported. And I spoke with Jeanne Theoharis about her new book, "King of the North: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Life of Struggle Outside the South." The book focuses on how King's experiences outside the South significantly influenced his campaign for racial justice. #BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (https://bit.ly/3VDPKjD) and Risks (https://bit.ly/3ZQzHl0) related to this offering before investing. Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox http://www.blackstarnetwork.com The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – Lawsuits are mounting against the Trump Administration, with the NAACP and Legal Defense Fund challenging efforts to end DEI programs in public schools. The case argues that civil rights laws are being misinterpreted, while critics say the public's lack of critical thinking is being exploited. With early wins, the Administration may have the Supreme Court on its side.

On this week's episode of 'The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart': Scare Tactic. The Trump Administration is now going after law firms that challenge the President's agenda in court. Janai Nelson of the Legal Defense Fund will tell me how attorneys are responding and why this is a troubling escalation in a very troubling Trump pattern. Standing Firm. Despite criticism from fellow Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says he's not going anywhere while vowing to make Donald Trump the "quickest lame duck in modern history." Former Senators Doug Jones and Debbie Stabenow will tell me how Democrats can make that happen. And the Unthinkable. Five years after the police murder of George Floyd, some right-wing extremists are pushing for a pardon for his killer, Derek Chauvin. Floyd's girlfriend, Courteney Ross, joins me with reaction to this attempt to rewrite history. All that and more on “The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart.” 

This episode of Justice Above All discusses voter challenges and voter turnout ahead of the November 5, 2024 election.  Our guests explain how voter intimidation and voter suppression tactics continue to pose systemic barriers to Black voters. Even while this is occurring, Black voices are not being completely silenced: organizers are building Black political power in the South and celebrating major wins. Ahead of the November 2024 election, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) won two lawsuits which resulted in new, majority-Black congressional districts being created in Alabama and Louisiana. As a result, Black voters succeeded in electing three candidates of their choice to represent them in the House of Representatives (Shomari Figures and Terri Sewell in Alabama and Cleo Fields in Louisiana). Alabama and Louisiana are just two examples of places that illustrate the occurrence of some of the myriad forms of voter suppression tactics, as well as the effectiveness of voter advocacy in empowering Black voters to enact their right to vote. For more information on this episode, please visit: tminstituteldf.org/justice-above-all. This episode was hosted by Dr. Kesha Moore and produced by Jakiyah Bradley. Resonate Recordings edited the episode.  If you enjoyed this episode, please consider leaving a review and helping others find it! To keep up with the work of LDF please visit our website at www.naacpldf.org and follow us on X (formerly Twitter) at @naacp_ldf. To keep up with the work of the Thurgood Marshall Institute, please visit our website at www.tminstituteldf.org and follow us on X (formerly Twitter) at @tmi_ldf. To keep up with the latest research from the Thurgood Marshall Institute, including our recent report, Attack on our Power and Dignity: What Project 2025 Means for Black Communities, visit our website at https://tminstituteldf.org/what-project-2025-means-for-black-communities/. You can also learn more about the Legal Defense Fund's Black Voters on the Rise team at voting.naacpldf.org.If you enjoyed this episode please consider leaving a review and helping others find it! To keep up with the work of LDF please visit our website at www.naacpldf.org and follow us on social media at @naacp_ldf. To keep up with the work of the Thurgood Marshall Institute, please visit our website at www.tminstituteldf.org and follow us on Twitter at @tmi_ldf.

On this week's episode of 'The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart': Cliffhanger. Congress is set to vote this week on Speaker Johnson's short-term funding bill with just days to go before a possible government shutdown. Rep. Brendan Boyle, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, will tell me if Democrats will stand firm in their opposition and I'll also get his reaction to President Trump today refusing to rule out the possibility of a recession. Bloody Sunday. 60 years after the Selma marches that ushered in true American democracy, I'll talk with former Rep. Donna Edwards and Janai Nelson of the Legal Defense Fund about the state of civil rights today and Trump's assault on diversity. And Bad Science. The CDC plans to investigate a possible link between autism and vaccines, even though that theory has been debunked many times. Dr. Ashish Jha weighs in on that and new concerns over a measles outbreak. All that and more on “The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart.” 

Imani Brooks, Policy Fellow with Legal Defense Fund, joins the podcast this month to give us an overview on State Voting Rights Acts (SVRAs) across the country. She and Chris discuss what SVRAs do, how to build a strong SVRA, and what you can do to help pass one in your state. Resources mentioned in this episode: - New York AG's office SVRA landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/resources/organizations/new-york-voting-rights-act - Legal Defense Fund (LDF) SVRA landing page: https://www.naacpldf.org/state-voting-rights-protect-democracy/ - LDF + Center for American Progress explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUUG_fqycHs - Brennan Center State Voting Laws: https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/voting-reform/state-voting-laws - Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund voting rights page: https://www.aaldef.org/programs/voting-rights/ - Latino Justice voting rights page: https://www.latinojustice.org/en/voting-rights - Campaign Legal Center SVRAs page: https://campaignlegal.org/cases-actions/strengthening-democracy-through-state-voting-rights-acts-state-vras - Harvard Election Law Clinic: https://hls.harvard.edu/clinics/in-house-clinics/election-law-clinic/ - LDF SVRA Polling Key Findings Memo: https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-01-16-Key-Findings-Memo4.pdf - Democracy Diminished: State and Local Threats to Voting Post-Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder (Shelby County): https://tminstituteldf.org/publications/democracy-diminished/ - What Project 2025 Means for Black Communities: Voting Rights and Black Political Power: https://tminstituteldf.org/threats-to-voting-rights-project-2025/

2.21.2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Black man shot riding ATV, Trump and Maine Gov clash, Citigroup DEI rollback, Will Packer's new book A white man in Florida is facing murder charges for shooting a black man riding an ATV. The convict-in-chief and Maine's governor clashed at the White House over an executive order preventing transgender athletes from competing in girls' and women's sports. We will speak with an attorney from the Legal Defense Fund who is challenging three of Trump's executive orders that threaten civil rights and the ability of organizations to provide essential social and health services. And movie producer Will Packer dropped his new project this week. I talked to him about his book, "Who Better Than You? "The Art of Healthy Arrogance and Dreaming Big. You don't want to miss that conversation. #BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (https://bit.ly/3VDPKjD) and Risks (https://bit.ly/3ZQzHl0) related to this offering before investing. Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox http://www.blackstarnetwork.com The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Legal Defense Fund and Lambda Legal have filed a federal lawsuit challenging three executive orders issued by President Donald Trump that ban diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs—even alleging the policies effectively erase transgender people from federal protections. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the National Urban League, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, argues that the orders will severely restrict the organizations' ability to provide essential services, including HIV treatment, fair housing, and job training. Critics warn the policies could reverse decades of civil rights progress, putting vulnerable communities at risk. Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, called the measures “discriminatory at best and an attempt at institutionalized economic oppression.” The lawsuit also claims that the executive orders violate constitutional rights by chilling free speech and limiting efforts to promote diversity and inclusion. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On July 17th, 1944 the worst home front disaster of WWII unfolded in an instant when a munitions base exploded with the force of 5,000 lbs of TNT just outside of San Fransisco. The catastrophic incident killed 320 people instantly and injured hundreds more. The event resulted in the largest mutiny trial in US Naval History and raised awareness of racial injustice and unsafe working conditions during the war and became a critical event in the Civil Rights Movement. For the latest NPAD updates, group travel details, merch and more, follow us on npadpodcast.com and our socials at: Instagram: @nationalparkafterdark Twitter/X: @npadpodcast TikTok: @nationalparkafterdark Support the show by becoming an Outsider and receive ad free listening, bonus content and more on Patreon or Apple Podcasts. Want to see our faces? Catch full episodes on our YouTube Page! Thank you to the week's partners! BetterHelp: National Park After Dark is sponsored by BetterHelp. Get 10% off. Prose: Use our link for a free in-depth hair consultation and 50% off your first subscription order. Rocket Money: Use our link to get started saving. IQBAR: Text PARK to 64000 to get 20% off all IQBAR products and free shipping. For a full list of our sources, visit npadpodcast.com/episodes  Sources:  NPS, The National WWII Museum, CBS, US Naval Institute, NPS (2), Naval History and Heritage Command, NPS – Golden Gate Cemetery , CBS News, Legal Defense Fund

11.21.2024 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Trump's Picks & The Black Community, Matt Gaetz Withdraws, Jussie Smollett Conviction Overturned With every Trump administration appointment, we are seeing Project 2025 taking shape.  Janai Nelson, the president and director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund, is here to explain how Trump's picks may impact the Black community. Matt Gaetz couldn't take the heat!  He withdrew from his nomination to become the next attorney general. We'll share the audio of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. comparing Trump to Hitler and calling Trump supporters "belligerent idiots' and "outright Nazis." The Illinois Supreme Court overturns Jussie Smollett's conviction in his hoax attack. The Justice Department says the Trenton, New Jersey, police department has a pattern of misconduct.  In Georgia, a former cop who shot an unarmed black man wants a judge to throw out his murder charges. The president of Atlanta's NAACP will give us an update on the  Jimmy Atchinson murder case.  A Texas Jury awards nearly $100 Million to the Family of a black man killed by a former Dallas police officer.#BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC.  This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (link) and Risks (link) related to this offering before investing. Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox

With votes still being counted in the US election, the race isn't over. Both the Harris and Trump camps are preparing for possible legal battles, from ballot certification issues to potential cases before the Supreme Court. Americans have cast their votes – will the legal system ensure every ballot is counted? In this episode: Amir Badat (@AmirBadat), Manager of Black Voters on the Rise and Special Counsel at  Legal Defense Fund, NAACP Episode credits: This episode was produced by Amy Walters, Sonia Bhagat, Sarí el-Khalili with Phillip Lanos, Spencer Cline, Duha Mosaad, Hagir Saleh, Cole van Miltenburg, and our host, Malika Bilal.  Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editor is Hisham Abu Salah. Alexandra Locke is The Take's executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera's head of audio. Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Threads and YouTube

Legal Defense Fund for Jerusalem Armenians: https://givebutter.com/ArmenianQuarter?s=d1eAoyJeremy Loffredo's report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIv6x8ElT4o&t=375sFollow Kegham on X: https://x.com/kbalian90Follow Save the ArQ: https://x.com/SavetheArQ

Not only does Unicorn Riot put out impressive, badly needed content that covers our movements - but they do it using a decentralized, non-hierarchal model that we could all learn from. A model that frees their members, pulls in as many people as possible and gets a lot done with little resources. We get to talk to three members of Unicorn Riot about how they work with contributors from all over the globe to tell previously untold stories of resistance, state suppression and more. For example, they are the folks imbedded in the protests we're seeing around the Democratic National Convention (DNC). They certainly do provide, Blueprints of Disruption._________________All of our content is free - made possible by the generous sponsorships of our Patrons. If you would like to support us: PatreonFollow us on InstagramResources: Unicorn Riot's Legal Defense Fund

Jason Johnson, President, Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund | 6-12-24See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to the Season four kick-off! Today, we have our first interview with one of the authors from our anthology on Christianity and American politics, the incredible Dr. Randy Woodley. The episode includes:-        How dualism defines White worldviews, and how it negatively affects White Christians-        How love and vulnerability are central to a life with Jesus-        Why our voting decisions matter to marginalized people-        And after the interview in our new segment, hear Jonathan and Sy talk about the attack on teaching Black history in schools, and the greater responsibility White people need to take for their feelings about historical factsResources Mentioned in the Episode-            Dr. Woodley's essay in our anthology: “The Fullness Thereof.”-            Dr. Woodley's book he wrote with his wife, now available for pre-order: Journey to Eloheh: How Indigenous Values Led Us to Harmony and Well-Being-            Dr. Woodley's recent children's books, the Harmony Tree Trilogy-            Our highlight from Which Tab Is Still Open?: The podcast conversation with Nikole Hannah-Jones and Jelani Cobb-            The book A Race Is a Nice Thing to Have: A Guide to Being a White Person or Understanding the White Persons in Your LifeCredits-        Follow KTF Press on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Subscribe to get our newsletter and bonus episodes at KTFPress.com.-        Follow host Jonathan Walton on Facebook Instagram, and Threads.-        Follow host Sy Hoekstra on Mastodon.-        Our theme song is “Citizens” by Jon Guerra – listen to the whole song on Spotify.-        Our podcast art is by Robyn Burgess – follow her and see her other work on Instagram.-        Production by Sy Hoekstra.-        Transcript by Joyce Ambale and Sy HoekstraTranscript[An acoustic guitar softly plays six notes, the first three ascending and the last three descending – F#, B#, E, D#, B – with a keyboard pad playing the note B in the background. Both fade out as Jonathan Walton says “This is a KTF Press podcast.”]Randy Woodley: So the Europeans were so set in this dualistic mindset that they began to kill each other over what they consider to be correct doctrine. So we had the religious wars all throughout Europe, and then they brought them to the United States. And here we fought by denomination, so we're just like, “Well I'm going to start another denomination. And I'm going to start another one from that, because I disagree with you about who gets baptized in what ways and at what time,” and all of those kinds of things. So doctrine then, what we think about, and theology, becomes completely disembodied to the point now where the church is just looked at mostly with disdain.[The song “Citizens” by Jon Guerra fades in. Lyrics: “I need to know there is justice/ That it will roll in abundance/ And that you're building a city/ Where we arrive as immigrants/ And you call us citizens/ And you welcome us as children home.” The song fades out.]Jonathan Walton: Welcome to Shake the Dust, seeking Jesus, confronting injustice. My name is Jonathan Walton.Sy Hoekstra: And I am Sy Hoekstra, we are so excited to be starting our interviews with our writers from our Anthology in 2020 that we published when we [resigned voice] had the same election that we're having this year [Jonathan laughs]. So it's still relevant at least, and we're really excited to bring you Dr. Randy Woodley today. Jonathan, why don't you tell everyone a bit about Dr. Woodley?Jonathan Walton: Yeah. So Dr. Woodley is a distinguished professor emeritus of faith and culture at George Fox Seminary in Portland, Oregon. His PhD is in intercultural studies. He's an activist, a farmer, a scholar, and active in ongoing conversations and concerns about racism, diversity, eco-justice, reconciliation ecumen… that's a good word.Sy Hoekstra: Ecumenism [laughter].Jonathan Walton: Ecumenism, interfaith dialogue, mission, social justice and indigenous peoples. He's a Cherokee Indian descendant recognized by the Keetoowah Band. He is also a former pastor and a founding board member of the North American Institute for Indigenous Theological Studies, or NAIITS, as we call it. Dr. Woodley and his wife Edith are co-founders and co-sustainers of Eloheh Indigenous Center for Earth Justice situated on farmland in Oregon. Their Center focuses on developing, implementing and teaching sustainable and regenerative earth practices. Together, they have written a book called Journey to Eloheh: How Indigenous Values Led Us to Harmony and Well-Being, which will come out in October. It's available for preorder now, you should definitely check it out. Dr. Woodley also released children's books called Harmony Tree.In our conversation, we talk about what he thinks is the key reason Western Christians have such a hard time following Jesus well, the centrality of love in everything we do as followers of Jesus, the importance of this year's elections to marginalize people, and Dr. Woodley's new books, and just a lot more.Sy Hoekstra: His essay in our book was originally published in Sojourners. It was one of the very few not original essays we had in the book, but it's called “The Fullness Thereof,” and that will be available in the show notes. I'll link to that along with a link to all the books that Jonathan just said and everything else. We're also going to be doing a new segment that we introduced in our bonus episodes, if you were listening to those, called Which Tab Is Still Open?, where we do a little bit of a deeper dive into one of the recommendations from our newsletter. So this week, it will be on The Attack on Black History in schools, a conversation with Jelani Cobb and Nikole Hannah-Jones. It was a really great thing to listen to. That'll be in the show notes to hear our thoughts on it after the interview.Jonathan Walton: Absolutely. And friends, we need your help. We're going into a new phase of KTF, and as you know, this is a listener supported show. So everything we do at KTF to help people leave the idols of America and seek Jesus and confront injustice is only possible because you are supporting us. And in this next phase, we need a lot more supporters. So we've been doing this show, and all of our work in KTF as kind of a side project for a few years, but we want to make it more sustainable. So if you've ever thought about subscribing and you can afford it, please go to and sign up now. And if you can't afford it, all you got to do is email us and we'll give you a free discounted subscription. No questions asked, because we want everyone to have access to our content, bonus episode, and the subscriber community features.So if you can afford it, please do go to www.ktfpress.com, subscribe and make sure these conversations can continue, and more conversations like it can be multiplied. Thanks in advance. Oh, also, because of your support, our newsletter is free right now. So if you can't be a paid subscriber, go and sign up for the free mailing list at www.ktfpress.com and get our media recommendations every week in your inbox, along with things that are helping us stay grounded and hopeful as we engage with such difficult topics at the intersection of church and politics, plus all the news and everything going on with us at KTF. So, thank you so, so much for the subscribers we already have. Thanks in advance for those five-star reviews, they really do help us out, and we hope to see you on www.ktfpress.com as subscribers. Thanks.Sy Hoekstra: Let's get into the interview, I have to issue an apology. I made a rookie podcasting mistake and my audio sucks. Fortunately, I'm not talking that much in this interview [laughter]. Randy Woodley is talking most of the time, and his recording comes to you from his home recording studio. So that's nice. I'll sound bad, but most of the time he's talking and he sounds great [Jonathan laughs]. So let's get right into it. Here's the interview.[the intro piano music from “Citizens” by Jon Guerra plays briefly and then fades out.]What Dualism Is, and How It's Infected the White ChurchJonathan Walton: So, Dr. Woodley, welcome to Shake The Dust. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you so much for contributing to our Anthology in the way that you contributed [laughs].Randy Woodley: I'm glad to be here. Thank you.Jonathan Walton: Yeah. Your essay, I mean, was really, really great. We're going to dive deep into it. But you wrote in the essay, the primary difference in the lens through which Western and indigenous Christians see the world is dualism. And so if you were able to just define what is dualism, and why is it a crucial thing for Western Christians to understand about our faith, that'd be great to kick us off.Randy Woodley: Yeah, except for I think I want to draw the line differently than the question you just asked.Jonathan Walton: Okay.Randy Woodley: When we say indigenous Christians, by and large, Christians who are Native Americans have been assimilated into a Western worldview. It's a battle, and there's lots of gradient, there's a gradient scale, so there's lots of degrees of that. But by and large, because of the assimilation efforts of missionaries and churches and Christianity in general, our Native American Christians would probably veer more towards a Western worldview. But so I want to draw that line at traditional indigenous understandings as opposed to indigenous Christian understandings. Okay. So, yeah, Platonic Dualism is just a sort of… I guess to make it more personal, I started asking the question a long time ago, like what's wrong with White people [Sy laughs]? So that's a really valid question, a lot of people ask it, right? But then I kind of got a little more sophisticated, and I started saying, well, then what is whiteness? What does that mean? And then tracing down whiteness, and a number of deep studies and research, and trying to understand where does whiteness really come from, I really ended up about 3000 years ago with the Platonic Dualism, and Western civilization and the Western worldview. And so Plato of course was the great dualist, and he privileged the ethereal over the material world, and then he taught his student, Aristotle. So just to be clear for anybody who, I don't want to throw people off with language. So the thing itself is not the thing, is what Plato said, it's the idea of what the thing is. And so what he's doing is splitting reality. So we've got a holistic reality of everything physical, everything ethereal, et cetera. So Plato basically split that and said, we privilege and we are mostly about what we think about things, not what actually exists an our physical eyes see, or any senses understand. So that split reality… and then he taught Aristotle, and I'm going to make this the five-minute crash course, or two minutes maybe would be better for this [laughs]. Aristotle actually, once you create hierarchies in reality, then everything becomes hierarchical. So men become over women, White people become over Black people. Humans become over the rest of creation. So now we live in this hierarchical world that continues to be added to by these philosophers.Aristotle is the instructor, the tutor to a young man named Alexander, whose last name was The Great. And Alexander basically spreads this Platonic Dualism, this Greek thinking around the whole world, at that time that he could figure out was the world. It goes as far as North Africa and just all over the known world at that time. Eventually, Rome becomes the inheritor of this, and then we get the Greco-Roman worldview. The Romans try to improve upon it, but basically, they continue to be dualist. It gets passed on, the next great kingdom is Britain, Great Britain. And then of course America is the inheritor of that. So Great Britain produces these movements.In fact, between the 14th and 17th century, they have the Renaissance, which is a revival of all this Greek thinking, Roman, Greco-Roman worldview, architecture, art, poetry, et cetera. And so these become what we call now the classics, classic civilization. When we look at what's the highest form of civilization, we look back to, the Western worldview looks back to Greek and Greece and Rome and all of these, and still that's what's taught today to all the scholars. So, during this 14th to 17th century, there's a couple pretty big movements that happen in terms of the West. One, you have the enlightenment. The enlightenment doubles down on this dualism. You get people like René Descartes, who says, “I am a mind, but I just have a body.” You get Francis Bacon, who basically put human beings over nature. You get all of this sort of doubling down, and then you also have the birth of another, what I would call the second of the evil twins, and that is the Reformation. [exaggerated sarcastic gasp] I'll give the audience time to respond [laughter]. The Reformation also doubles down on this dualism, and it becomes a thing of what we think about theology, instead of what we do about theology. So I think I've said before, Jesus didn't give a damn about doctrine. So it became not what we actually do, but what we think. And so the Europeans were so set in this dualistic mindset that they began to kill each other over what they consider to be correct doctrine. So we had the religious wars all throughout Europe, and then they brought them to the United States. And here we fought by denomination, so just like, “Well, I'm going to start another denomination. And I'm going to start another one from that, because I disagree with you about who gets baptized in what ways, and at what time,” and all of those kinds of things.So doctrine then, what we think about, and theology becomes what we're thinking about. And it becomes completely disembodied, to the point now where the church is just looked at mostly with disdain, because it doesn't backup the premises that it projects. So it talks about Jesus and love and all of these things. And yet it's not a reflection of that, it's all about having the correct beliefs, and we think that's what following Jesus is. So when I'm talking about Platonic Dualism, I'm talking about something deeply embedded in our worldview. Not just a thought, not just a philosophy, but a whole worldview. It's what we see as reality. And so my goal is to convert everyone from a Western worldview, which is not sustainable, and it will not project us into the future in a good way, to a more indigenous worldview.Dr. Woodley's Influences, and How He's Influenced OthersSy Hoekstra: So let's talk about that effort then, because you have spent effectively decades trying to do just that.Randy Woodley: Exactly.Sy Hoekstra: Working with both indigenous and non-indigenous people. So tell us what some of the good fruit that you see as you disciple people out of this dualistic thinking?Randy Woodley: I feel like that question is supposed to be answered by the people I effected at my memorial service, but…Sy Hoekstra: [laughter] Well, you can answer for yourself.Jonathan Walton: Yeah, I mean…Randy Woodley: Yeah, I mean, it's a bit braggadocious if I start naming names and all those kinds of things [Sy laughs]. I would just say that I've had influence in people's lives along with other influences. And now, I mean, first of all when I look back, I look and the most important thing to me is my children know I love them with all my heart and I did the best I could with them. And then secondly, the people who I taught became my friends. And the people I've mentored became my friends and I'm still in relationship with so many of them. That's extremely important to me. That's as important as anything else. And then now I look and I see there's people and they've got podcasts and they've got organizations and they've got denominations and they're... I guess overall, the best thing that I have done to help other people over the years is to help them to ask good questions in this decolonization effort and this indigenous effort. So yeah, I've done a little bit over the years.Sy Hoekstra: [laughs] How about for yourself? Because I don't think, I think one of the reasons you started asking these questions was to figure things out for yourself. What fruit have you seen in your own “walk,” as evangelicals might put it?Randy Woodley: Well, I think as you get older, you get clarity. And you also realize that people who have influenced you, and I think about a lot of people in my life. Some I've met, some I've never met. Some you've probably never heard of. People like Winkie Pratney, and John Mohawk and John Trudell, and public intellectuals like that. And then there's the sort of my some of my professors that helped me along the way like Ron Sider and Tony Campolo, and Samuel Escobar and Manfred Brauch. And just a whole lot of people I can look back, Jean [inaudible], who took the time to build a relationship and helped me sort of even in my ignorance, get out of that. And I think one of the first times this happened was when I was doing my MDiv, and someone said to me, one of my professors said to me, “You need to see this through your indigenous eyes.” And I was challenged. It was like, “Oh! Well then, what eyes am I seeing this through?” And then I began to think about that. The thing about decolonizing, is that once you start pulling on that thread the whole thing comes unraveled. So yeah.Jonathan Walton: Yeah, I think like, just to speak a little bit to your impact, I think something you said to someone that was said to me, was like we're all indigenous to somewhere. And the importance of looking upstream to see how we're influenced to be able to walk into the identity that God has called us to. Including the people who led me to faith being like Ashley Byrd, Native Hawaiian, being able to call me out of a dualist way of thinking and into something more holistic, and now having multi-ethnic children myself being able to speak to them in an indigenous way that connects them to a land and a people has been really transformative for me.Randy Woodley: Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. See? Right there.Love and Vulnerability are Central to Christian LifeJonathan Walton: [laughs] Yeah. And with that, you make a point of saying that you're somebody who works hard to speak difficult truths in a way that is loving and acceptable to everybody. I would say that's like Jesus, right? To be able to speak hard truths and yet people are curious and want to know more even though they're challenged. And so why, I could guess, and I'm sure people would fill in the blanks. But like if you had to say why that's important to you, what would you say?Randy Woodley: Well, I mean, love's the bottom line of everything. If I'm not loving the people I'm with, then I'm a hypocrite. I'm not living up to what I'm speaking about. So the bottom line to all of this shalom, understanding dualism, changing worldviews, is love. And so love means relationship. It means being vulnerable. I always say God is the most vulnerable being who exists. And if I'm going to be the human that the creator made me to be, then I have to be vulnerable. I have to risk and I have to trust and I have to have courage and love, and part of that is building relationships with people. So I think, yeah, if… in the old days, we sort of had a group of Native guys that hung around together, me and Richard Twiss, Terry LeBlanc, Ray Aldred, Adrian Jacobs. We all sort of had a role. Like, we called Richard our talking head. So he was the best communicator and funniest and he was out there doing speaking for all of us. And my role that was put on me was the angry Indian. So I was the one out there shouting it down and speaking truth to power and all that. And over the years, I realized that that's okay. I still do that. And I don't know that I made a conscious decision or if I just got older, but then people start coming up to me and saying things like, “Oh, you say some really hard things, but you say it with love.” And I'm like, “Oh, okay. Well, I'll take that.” So I just became this guy probably because of age, I don't know [laughs] and experience and seeing that people are worth taking the extra time to try and communicate in a way that doesn't necessarily ostracize them and make them feel rejected.Jonathan Walton: Yeah, that definitely makes sense. I think there's all these iterations of the last 50 years of people trying to say, “Hey, love across difference. Hey, love across difference.” And there's these iterations that come up. So I hope a lot of people get older faster to be able, you know [laughter].Randy Woodley: I think we're all getting older faster in this world we're in right now.Jonathan Walton: It's true. Go ahead Sy.The Importance of Voters' Choices to marginalized PeopleSy Hoekstra: Yeah. So we had another interview that we did, kind of about Middle East politics, as we're thinking about the election coming up. And one of the points we hit on that we've talked about before on this show is that to a lot of people in the Middle East or North Africa, whoever gets elected in the US, it doesn't necessarily make the biggest difference in the world. There's going to be drones firing missiles, there's going to be governments being manipulated by the US. America is going to do what America is going to do in the Middle East regardless. And I assume to a certain degree, tell me if I'm wrong, that that might be how a lot of indigenous people think about America. America is going to do what America is going to do regardless of who's in power, broadly speaking at least. What do you think about when you look at the choices in front of us this November? How do you feel about it? Like what is your perspective when you're actually thinking about voting?Randy Woodley: Yeah, that's a really good question. And I understand I think, how people in other countries might feel, because Americans foreign policy is pretty well based on America first and American exceptionalism, and gaining and maintaining power in the world. And I think that makes little difference. But in domestic affairs, I think it makes a whole lot of difference. Native Americans, much like Black Americans are predominantly Democrats and there's a reason for that. And that is because we're much more likely to not have our funding to Indian Health Service cut off in other things that we need, housing grants and those kinds of things. And there's just such a difference right now, especially in the domestic politics. So I mean, the Republicans have basically decided to abandon all morals and follow a narcissistic, masochistic, womanizing… I mean, how many—criminal, et cetera, and they've lost their minds.And not that they have ever had the best interest of the people at the bottom of the social ladder in mind. Because I mean, it was back in the turnaround when things changed a long time ago that there was any way of comparing the two. But ever since Reagan, which I watched, big business wins. And so right now, we live in a corporatocracy. And yes, there are Democrats and the Republicans involved in that corporatocracy, but you will find many more Democrats on the national scale who are for the poor and the disenfranchised. And that's exactly what Shalom is about. It's this Shalom-Sabbath-Jubilee construct that I call, that creates the safety nets. How do you know how sick a society is? How poor its safety nets are. So the better the safety nets, the more Shalom-oriented, Sabbath-Jubilee construct what I call it, which is exactly what Jesus came to teach.And look up four, that's his mission. Luke chapter four. And so, when we think about people who want to call themselves Christians, and they aren't concerned about safety nets, they are not following the life and words of Jesus. So you just have to look and say, yes, they'll always, as long as there's a two-party system, it's going to be the lesser of two evils. That's one of the things that's killing us, of course lobbyists are killing us and everything else. But this two-party system is really killing us. And as long as we have that, we're always going to have to choose the lesser of two evils. It's a very cynical view, I think, for people inside the United States to say, well, there's no difference. In fact, it's a ridiculous view. Because all you have to look at is policy and what's actually happened to understand that there's a large difference, especially if you're poor.And it's also a very privileged position of whiteness, of power, of privilege to be able to say, “Oh, it doesn't matter who you vote for.” No, it matters to the most disenfranchised and the most marginalized people in our country. But I don't have a strong opinion about that. [laughter]Jonathan Walton: I think there's going to be a lot of conversation about that very point. And I'm prayerful, I'm hopeful, like we tried to do with our Anthology like other groups are trying to do, is to make that point and make it as hard as possible that when we vote it matters, particularly for the most disenfranchised people. And so thank you for naming the “survival vote,” as black women in this country call it.Dr. Woodley's new books, and Where to Find His Work OnlineJonathan Walton: And so all of that, like we know you're doing work, we know things are still happening, especially with Eloheh and things like that. But I was doing a little Googling and I saw like you have a new book coming out [laughs]. So I would love to hear about the journey that… Oh, am I saying that right, Eloheh?Randy Woodley: It's Eloheh [pronounced like “ay-luh-hay”], yeah.Jonathan Walton: Eloheh. So I would love to hear more about your new book journey to Eloheh, as well as where you want people to just keep up with your stuff, follow you, because I mean, yes, the people downstream of you are pretty amazing, but the spigot is still running [laughter]. So can you point us to where we can find your stuff, be able to hang out and learn? That would be a wonderful thing for me, and for others listening.Randy Woodley: Well, first of all, I have good news for the children. I have three children's books that just today I posted on my Facebook and Insta, that are first time available. So this is The Harmony Tree Trilogy. So in these books are about not only relationships between host people and settler peoples, but each one is about sort of different aspects of dealing with climate change, clear cutting, wildfires, animal preservation, are the three that I deal with in this trilogy. And then each one has other separate things. Like the second one is more about empowering women. The third one is about children who we would call, autistic is a word that's used. But in the native way we look at people who are different differently than the West does: as they're specially gifted. And this is about a young man who pre-contact and his struggle to find his place in native society. And so yeah, there's a lot to learn in these books. But yeah, so my wife and I…Sy Hoekstra: What's the target age range for these books?Randy Woodley: So that'd be five to 11.Jonathan Walton: Okay, I will buy them, thank you [laughter]Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Randy Woodley: But adults seem to really love them too. So I mean, people have used them in church and sermons and all kinds of things. Then the book that Edith and I wrote is called Journey to Eloheh, how indigenous values bring harmony and well-being. And it's basically our story. The first two chapters really deal, the first chapter deals more in depth of this dualism construct. And the second one really deals with my views on climate change, which are unlike anybody else's I know. And then we get into our stories, but I wanted to set a stage of why it's so important. And then Edith's story, and then my story and then our story together. And then how we have tried to teach these 10 values as we live in the world and teach and mentor and other things and raise our children.So, yeah, the journey to Eloheh, that's all people have to remember. It's going to be out in October, eighth I think.Jonathan Walton: Okay.Randy Woodley: And we're really excited about it. I think it's the best thing I've written up to this date. And I know it's the best thing my wife's written because this is her first book [laughter].Jonathan Walton: Awesome.Sy Hoekstra: That's great.Randy Woodley: Yeah, so we're proud of that. And then yeah, people can go to www.eloheh.org. That's E-L-O-H-E-H.org and sign up for our newsletter. You can follow me on Instagram, both @randywoodley7 and @eloheh/eagleswings. And the same with Facebook. We all have Facebook pages and those kinds of things. So yeah, and then Twitter. I guess I do something on Twitter every now and then [laughter]. And I have some other books, just so you know.Sy Hoekstra: Just a couple.Jonathan Walton: I mean a few. A few pretty great ones. [laughs] Well on behalf of me and Sy, and the folks that we influence. Like I've got students that I've pointed toward you over the years through the different programs that we run,Randy Woodley: Thank you.Jonathan Walton: and one of them is… two of them actually want to start farms and so you'll be hearing from them.Randy Woodley: Oh, wow. That's good.Jonathan Walton: And so I'm just…Randy Woodley: We need more small farms.Jonathan Walton: Yes. Yes, absolutely. Places where stewardship is happening and it is taught. And so, super, super grateful for you. And thanks again for being on Shake the Dust. We are deeply grateful.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Randy Woodley: Yeah, thank you guys. Nice to be with you.[the intro piano music from “Citizens” by Jon Guerra plays briefly and then fades out.]Sy's and Jonathan's Thoughts After the InterviewJonathan Walton: So, wow. That was amazing. Coming out of that time, I feel like I'm caring a lot. So Sy, why don't you go first [laughs], what's coming up for you?Sy Hoekstra: We sound a little starstruck when we were talking to him. It's kind of funny actually.Jonathan Walton: Absolutely.Sy Hoekstra: I don't know. Yeah, I don't know if people know, in our world, he's sort of a big deal [laughter]. And we have, neither of us have met him before so that was a lot of fun.Jonathan Walton: No, that's true.Sy Hoekstra: I think it was incredible how much like in the first five minutes, him summing up so much about Western theology and culture that I have taken like, I don't know, 15 years to learn [laughs]. And he just does it so casually and so naturally. There's just like a depth of wisdom and experience and thinking about this stuff there that I really, really appreciate. And it kind of reminded me of this thing that happened when Gabrielle and I were in law school. Gabrielle is my wife, you've heard her speak before if you listen to the show. She was going through law school, as she's talked about on the show from a Haitian-American, or Haitian-Canadian immigrant family, grew up relatively poor, undocumented.And just the reasons that she's gotten into the law are so different. And she comes from such a different background than anybody who's teaching her, or any of the judges whose cases she's reading. And she's finding people from her background just being like, “What are we doing here? Like how is this relevant to us, how does this make a difference?” And we went to this event one time that had Bryan Stevenson, the Capitol defense attorney who we've talked about before, civil rights attorney. And Sherrilyn Ifill, who at the time was the head of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund. And they were just, it was the complete opposite experience, like they were talking about all of her concerns. They were really like, I don't know, she was just resonating with everything that they were saying, and she came out of it, and she goes, “It's just so good to feel like we have leaders.” Like it's such a relief to feel like you actually have wiser people who have been doing this and thinking about this for a long time and actually have the same concerns that you do. And that is how I feel coming out of our conversation with Randy Woodley. Like in the church landscape that we face with all the crises and the scandals and the lack of faithfulness and the ridiculous politics and everything, it is just so good to sit down and talk to someone like him, where I feel like somebody went ahead of me. And he's talking about the people who went ahead of him, and it just it's relieving. It is relieving to feel like you're almost sort of part of a tradition [laughter], when you have been alienated from the tradition that you grew up in, which is not the same experience that you've had, but that's how I feel.Jonathan Walton: Yeah. I mean, I think for me, coming out of the interview, one of the things I realized is similar. I don't have very many conversations with people who are older than me, that are more knowledgeable than me, and have been doing this work longer than me all at the same time. I know people who are more knowledgeable, but they're not actively involved in the work. I know people that are actively involved in the work, but they've been in the silos for so long, they haven't stepped out of their box in ten years. But so to be at that intersection of somebody who is more knowledgeable about just the knowledge, like the historical aspects, theological aspect, and then that goes along with the practical applications, like how you do it in your life and in the lives of other people. He's like the spiritual grandfather to people that I follow.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Jonathan Walton: [laughter] So it's like, so I think you said it, like we were a little starstruck. I do think I was very conscious of being respectful, which I think is not new for me, but it is a space that I don't often inhabit. And I think that's something that has been frustrating for me, just honestly like the last few years, is that the pastoral aspect of the work that we do, is severely lacking.Sy Hoekstra: When you say the pastoral aspect of the work that we do, you mean like, in the kind of activist-y Christian space, there just aren't a ton of pastors [laughs]?Jonathan Walton: Yes. And, so for example, like I was in a cohort, and I was trying to be a participant. And so being a participant in the cohort, I expected a certain level of pastoring to happen for me. And that in hindsight was a disappointment. But I only realized that after sitting down with somebody like Randy, where it's like, I'm not translating anything. He knows all the words. He knows more words than me [Sy laughs]. I'm not contextualizing anything. So I think that was a reassuring conversation. I think I felt the same way similarly with Ron Sider, like when I met him. He's somebody who just knows, you know what and I mean? I feel that way talking with Lisa Sharon Harper. I feel that way talking with Brenda Salter McNeil. I feel that way talking with people who are just a little further down the road.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah. Lisa's not that much older than us [laughter].Jonathan Walton: Well, is she?Sy Hoekstra: You compared her to Ron Sider. I'm like, “That's a different age group, Jonathan” [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Well, I don't mean age. I do mean wisdom and experience.Sy Hoekstra: Right. Yeah, totally.Jonathan Walton: Yes, Ron Sider was very old [laughs]. And actually, Ron Sider is actually much older than Randy Woodley [laughs].Sy Hoekstra: That's also true. That's a good point.Jonathan Walton: Yeah, right. Ron Sider is, when the Anthology came out, he was legit 45 years older than us, I think.Sy Hoekstra: And he very kindly, endorsed, and then passed away not that long afterwards.Jonathan Walton: He did, he did.Sy Hoekstra: He was such an interesting giant in a lot of ways to people all over the political spectrum [laughs]…Jonathan Walton: Yes, right.Sy Hoekstra: …who just saw something really compelling in his work.Which Tab Is Still Open? Legislators Restricting Teaching about Race in SchoolsSy Hoekstra: So Jonathan, all right, from our recent newsletter recommendations. Here's the new segment, guys. Jonathan, which tab is still open?Jonathan Walton: Yes. So the tab that's still open is this article and podcast episode from The New Yorker, featuring a conversation with Columbia School of Journalism Dean, Jelani Cobb, and Nikole Hannah-Jones from Howard University and the 1619 project. They talked about the attack on Black history in schools. And so there's just two thoughts that I want to give. And one of them is that there are very few conversations where you can get a broad overview of what an organized, sustained resistance to accurate historical education looks like, and they do that. Like they go all the way back and they come all the way forward, and you're like “expletive, this is not okay.” [Sy laughs] Right? So, I really appreciated that. Like, yes, you could go and read Angela Crenshaw's like Opus work. Yes, you could go…Sy Hoekstra: You mean, Kimberlé Crenshaw [laughs]?Jonathan: Oh, I mixed, Angela Davis and Kimber… Well, if they were one person, that would be a powerful person [Sy laughs]. But I do mean Kimberlé Crenshaw, no offense to Angela Davis. I do mean Kimberlé Crenshaw. You could go get that book. You could go listen to Ta-Nehisi Coates testimony in front of Congress on reparations. Like these long things, but like this conversation pulls a lot of threads together in a really, really helpful, compelling way. And so that's one thing that stood out to me. The second thing is I think I have to acknowledge how fearful and how grateful it made me. I am afraid of what's going to happen in 20 years, when children do not know their history in these states. And I'm grateful that my daughter will know hers because she goes to my wife's school in New York.And so, I did not know that I would feel that sense of fear and anxiety around like, man, there's going to be generations of people. And this is how it continues. There's going to be another generation of people who are indoctrinated into the erasure of black people. And the erasure of native people in the erasure of just narratives that are contrary to race-based, class-based, gender-based environmental hierarchies. And that is something that I'm sad about. And with KTF and other things, just committed to making sure that doesn't happen as best as we possibly can, while also being exceptionally grateful that my children are not counted in that number of people that won't know. So I hold those two things together as I listened to just the wonderful wisdom and knowledge that they shared from. What about you Sy? What stood out for you?White People Should Take Responsibility for Their Feelings Instead of Banning Uncomfortable TruthsSy Hoekstra: Narrowly, I think one really interesting point that Jelani Cobb made was how some of these book bans and curriculum reshaping and everything that's happening are based on the opposite reasoning of the Supreme Court in Brown versus Board of Education [laughs]. So what he meant by that was, basically, we have to ban these books and we have to change this curriculum, because White kids are going to feel bad about being White kids. And what Brown versus Board of Education did was say we're going to end this idea of separate but equal in the segregated schools because there were they actually, Thurgood Marshall and the people who litigated the case brought in all this science or all the psychological research, about how Black children in segregated schools knew at a very young age that they were of lower status, and had already associated a bunch of negative ideas with the idea of blackness.And so this idea that there can be separate but equal doesn't hold any water, right? So he was just saying we're doing what he called the opposite, like the opposite of the thinking from Brown versus Board of Education at this point. But what I was thinking is like the odd similarity is that both these feelings of inferiority come from whiteness, it's just that like, one was imposed by the dominant group on to the minoritized group. Basically, one was imposed by White people on to Black people, and the other is White people kind of imposing something on themselves [laughs]. Like you are told that your country is good and great and the land of the free and the home of the brave. And so when you learn about history that might present a different narrative to you, then you become extremely uncomfortable.And you start to not just become extremely uncomfortable, but also feel bad about yourself as an individual. And White people, there are so many White people who believe that being told that the race to which you belong has done evil things, that means that you as an individual are a bad person, which is actually just a personal emotional reaction that not all white people are going to have. It's not like, it isn't a sure thing. And I know that because I'm a White person who does not have that reaction [laughter]. I know that with 100 percent certainty. So it's just interesting to me, because it really raised this point that Scott Hall talks about a lot. That people need to be responsible for our own feelings. We don't need to legislate a new reality of history for everybody else in order to keep ourselves comfortable.We need to say, “Why did I had that emotional reaction, and how can I reorient my sense of identity to being white?” And that is what I came out of this conversation with, is just White people need to take responsibility for our identity, our psychological identity with our own race. And it comes, it's sort of ironic, I think, that conservative people who do a lot of complaining about identity politics, or identitarianism, or whatever they call it, that's what's happening here. This is a complete inability to separate yourself psychologically from your White identity. That's what makes you feel so uncomfortable in these conversations. And so take responsibility for who you are White people [laughs].Just who you are as an individual, who you are as your feelings, take responsibility for yourself.There's a great book that my dad introduced me to a while back called A Race Is a Nice Thing to Have: A Guide to Being White or Understanding the White Persons in Your Life [laughter]. And it's written by this black, female psychologist named Janet Helms. It's H-E-L-M-S. But it's pronounced “Helmiss.” And she just has dedicated her career to understanding how White people shape their identities. And she has so, like such a wealth of knowledge about different stages of white identity formation, and has all these honestly kind of funny little quizzes in the book that she updates every few, there's like a bunch of editions of this book, that it's like asking you, “What do you think is best for America?” The campaign and ideas of this politician or this one or this one. And she asks you a bunch of questions and from there tells you where you are in your White identity formation [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Wow. That's amazing.Sy Hoekstra: It's really, “how would you feel if somebody said this about White people?” whatever. Tons of different questions, it's kind of like taking a personality test, but it's about you and your race [laughs]. That's just a resource that I would offer to people as a way to do what this conversation reminded me my people all very much need to do.Jonathan Walton: Amen.Sy Hoekstra: I just talked for a long time, Jonathan, we need to end. But do you have any thoughts [laughs]?Jonathan Walton: No. I was just going to say this podcast is a great 101 and a great 301.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Jonathan Walton: Like it spans the spectrum. So please do if you haven't, go listen to the podcast. Yeah, just check it out. It's very, very good.Outro and OuttakeSy Hoekstra: We will have that in the show notes along with all the other links of everything that we had today. Okay, that's our first full episode of season four. We're so glad that you could join us. This was a great one full of a lot of great stuff. Our theme song as always is “Citizens” by Jon Guerra. Our podcast art is by Robyn Burgess. The show is produced by all of you, our lovely subscribers, and our transcripts are by Joyce Ambale. Thank you all so much for listening, we will see you in two weeks with the great Brandi Miller.[The song “Citizens” by Jon Guerra fades in. Lyrics: “I need to know there is justice/ That it will roll in abundance/ And that you're building a city/ Where we arrive as immigrants/ and you call us citizens/ and you welcome us as children home.” The song fades out.]Randy Woodley: You know, I think I've said before Jesus didn't give a damn about doctrine. Excuse me. Jesus didn't give a darn about doctrine. I don't know if that'll go through or not.[laughter]. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ktfpress.com/subscribe

There's a long history of racism in both education and health care. But some health equity advocates — including Michellene Davis, President and CEO at National Medical Fellowships — are holding onto hope that real change is possible. “The only reason why I like the name, the title ‘social determinants of health,' is because anything that has been socially constructed can be socially deconstructed,” Davis said. “Health disparities do not naturally occur in nature, they have been manmade, right? So now it's time for us to unmake them.”  In this week's episode, host Dr. Tamara Huff speaks with Davis, along with Jennifer Holmes, Senior Counsel with the Legal Defense Fund, who works on cases that advance racial justice in the areas of educational equity, economic justice, and voting rights.

On "Forbes Newsroom," Forbes reporter Zach Everson discusses his report breaking down the Patriot Legal Defense Fund, which launched in July 2023 to defray the legal expenses of Trump's allies, and has submitted its quarterly filing to the IRS on Tuesday.READ MORE: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2024/04/16/trump-patriot-legal-defense-fund-allies-attorney-fees/?sh=453ab0461edaSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this Sentience episode, host Gloria Farris interviews Dr. Habiba Noor, a professor in Trinity's education and urban studies department about the symposium “Academic Freedom in an Era of Educational Intimidation” hosted on Trinity's campus earlier this year. The symposium brought in a wide range of panelists including Antonio L. Ingram III of the Legal Defense Fund and educators from all around Texas like Dr. Aimee Villareal from Texas State University to discuss the current issues surrounding both higher education and K-12 schooling. The episode features conversations captured during the symposium about subjects ranging from book banning to critical race theory and beyond. Song 1: Copper Coins Artist: Ketsa Song 2: Kaizen Artist: Soularflair Song 3: Emotive Ambience 1 Artist: Ketsa All sourced from the IML Collective Intro guitarron performed by Danna Ramirez Jimenez recorded in Studio B at Trinity University.

On today's show, Ed Martin discusses the latest in US and world politics. GUEST OVERVIEW: Ed Martin is the President of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. He's a lawyer and holds advanced degrees in medical ethics and philosophy. Ed has served as Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party and as a member of the Republican National Committee. He's a Board Member of the Patriot Freedom Project, which provides support for the January 6 political prisoners. In 2016, Ed coauthored with Phyllis Schlafly and Brett Decker the New York Times bestseller, The Conservative Case for Trump X: @eagleedmartin https://www.linkedin.com/in/edmartinjr/

4.12.2024  #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Ala. Town Sued For Not Having Elections,Remembering OJ Simpson,Discussing Sex with Dr. Rachael Ross A small Alabama town is being sued after white officials refused for three years to allow its first Black mayor to exercise his mayoral duties. We'll be joined by one of the attorneys from the Legal Defense Fund who filed a preliminary injunction to force Newbern, a town of about 133 people, to hold elections and allow its citizens to vote for the first time in years. The OJ Simpson murder trial will always be a trial people will talk about. Tonight, Carl Douglas, who was on the defense team led by Johnnie Cochran, will tell us what it was like defending the pro football hall of famer.  And Dr. Rachael Ross will be in the studio to discuss sexual health. #BlackStarNetwork partners:Fanbase

3.28.2024 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Haiti's Crisis, Tenn. GOP Votes To Vacate TSU's Trustee Board, SC. Congressional Maps HBCU All-Stars #BlackStarNetwork partners:Fanbase

Peter Navarro's Legal Defense Fund: https://www.givesendgo.com/navarro   Learn more about Clay Clark and his upcoming events: https://www.thrivetimeshow.com/reawaken-america-tour/ Promo code Mel K for discount to events.   Clay on X: https://twitter.com/TheClayClark   We The People must stand strong, stay united, resolute, calm and focus on the mission - God Wins!   We at www.themelkshow.com want to thank all our amazing patriots pals for joining us on this journey, for your support of our work and for your faith in this biblical transition to greatness. We love what we do and are working hard to keep on top of everything to help this transition  along peacefully and with love. Please help us amplify our message: Like, Comment & Share!   The Show's Partners Page: https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Consider Making A Donation: https://themelkshow.com/donate/   Another way to get involved and find ways to become active in the community is to come meet Mel and many amazing truth warriors at our upcoming live in person speaking events. Together we are unstoppable. We look forward to seeing you. God Wins! https://themelkshow.com/events/ ReAwaken America Tour Detroit, MI June 7th & 8th  Remember to mention Mel K for great discounts on all these fun and informative events. See you there! Our Website www.TheMelKShow.com   Rumble (Video) - The Mel K Show: https://rumble.com/c/TheMelKShow Twitter: https://twitter.com/MelKShow Twitter (Original): https://twitter.com/originalmelk TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@themelkshow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/themelkshow/ CloutHub: https://app.clouthub.com/#/users/u/TheMelKShow Mel K Show Video Platform (Subscription): https://www.themelkshow.tv Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/Iw2kiviwZpwx/ Podbean: https://themelkshow.podbean.com/ Gab: https://gab.com/MelKShow GETTR: https://www.gettr.com/user/themelkshow Locals.com: https://melk.locals.com/ Banned Video: https://banned.video/channel/the-mel-k-show Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/themelkshow Odysee: https://odysee.com/@themelkshow:5   If you are interested to explore investing in precious metals please contact below and mention MelK for special offers:   Beverly Hills Precious Metals Exchange Buy Gold & Silver https://themelkshow.com/gold/ Speak with Gold Expert Andrew Sorchini…Tell Him Mel K Sent You!   Support Patriots With MyPillow Go to https://www.mypillow.com/melk Use offer code “MelK” to support both MyPillow and The Mel K Show   Mel K Superfoods Supercharge your wellness with Mel K Superfoods Use Code: MELKWELLNESS and Save Over $100 off retail today! www.MelKSuperfoods.com   Healthy Hydration: https://healthyhydration.com/products/mel-k-special-deluxe   Patriot Mobile Support your values, your freedom and the Mel K Show. Switch to Patriot Mobile for Free. Use free activation code MELK https://www.patriotmobile.com/melk/   HempWorx The #1 selling CBD brand. Offering cutting edge products that run the gamut from CBD oils and other hemp products to essential oils in our Mantra Brand, MDC Daily Sprays which are Vitamin and Herb combination sprays/ https://themelkshow.com/my-daily-choice/   Dr. Zelenko Immunity Protocols https://zstacklife.com/MelK   The Wellness Company - Emergency Medical Kits: www.twc.health/pages/melk-prepkit   Dr. Jason Dean and BraveTV bring you the most innovative and cutting edge science in Nutrition with Nano-Particle Detoxification, The Full Moon Parasite Protocol and Clot Shot Defense. https://bravetv.store/?sca_ref=3278505.GWvLbyryzv   Dr. Stella Immanuel, MD. Consult with a renowned healthcare provider! Offering Telehealth Services & Supplements. Use offer code ‘MelK' for 5% Off https://bit.ly/MelKDrStellaMD

On today's show, Ed Martin discusses the latest in US and world politics. GUEST OVERVIEW: Ed Martin is the President of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. He's a lawyer and holds advanced degrees in medical ethics and philosophy. Ed has served as Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party and as a member of the Republican National Committee. He's a Board Member of the Patriot Freedom Project, which provides support for the January 6 political prisoners. In 2016, Ed coauthored with Phyllis Schlafly and Brett Decker the New York Times bestseller, The Conservative Case for Trump. X: @eagleedmartin https://www.linkedin.com/in/edmartinjr/

On today's The Truth Central, Dr. Jerome Corsi talks with Dr. Charles Hoffe, who is fighting for his professional life after being persecuted for merely seeking to warn people about potential health hazards stemming from the COVID vaccines. "Do no harm" is an important tenet of the Hippocratic Oath, and Dr. Hoffe has been persecuted, chastised and had his career ruined for upholding that sacred promise.On April, 2021 Dr Charles Hoffe sent an open letter to the BC Provincial Health Officer, Dr Bonnie Henry, informing her of the injuries sustained by his own patients from the COVID vaccines, and questioning the ethics of continuing to administer a harmful vaccine. On May, 2021, the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons issued a statement warning doctors not to question the public health narrative, and that any doctors who did so, would be investigated and possibly disciplined. Dr Hoffe continued to be a vocal advocate for patient safety, medical ethics and the Hippocratic oath. In February, 2022, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC issued a citation against Dr Hoffe alleging that he “engaged in unprofessional conduct” and contravened the CMA Code of Ethics by raising questions with regard to vaccine injuries and early treatment. Dr. Hoffe goes in-depth with Dr. Corsi about what happened to him, why he kept fighting and how anyone can help him with his legal defense via GiveSendGo: https://www.givesendgo.com/GANZA (Dr. Hoffe's Legal Defense Fund.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-truth-central-with-dr-jerome-corsi--5810661/support.Join Dr. Jerome Corsi on Substack: https://jeromecorsiphd.substack.com/Visit The Truth Central website: https://www.thetruthcentral.comOUT NOW: Dr. Corsi's new book: The Truth About Neo-Marxism, Cultural Maoism and Anarchy.Pick up your copy today on Amazon: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/the-truth-about-neo-marxism-cultural-maoism-and-anarchy-exposing-woke-insanity-in-the-age-of-disinformation/Get your FREE copy of Dr. Corsi's new book with Swiss America CEO Dean Heskin, How the Coming Global Crash Will Create a Historic Gold Rush by calling: 800-519-6268Follow Dr. Jerome Corsi on X: @corsijerome1Our link to where to get the Marco Polo 650-Page Book on the Hunter Biden laptop & Biden family crimes free online:https://www.thetruthcentral.com/marco-polo-publishes-650-page-book-on-hunter-biden-laptop-biden-family-crimes-available-free-online/Our Sponsors:MyVitalC https://www.thetruthcentral.com/myvitalc-ess60-in-organic-olive-oil/Swiss America: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/CorsiRMP.phpThe MacMillan Agency: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/the-macmillan-agency/Pro Rapid Review: https://prorrt.com/thetruthcentralmembers/

On today's show, Ed Martin discusses the latest in US and world politics. Later, George Papadopoulos discusses the latest on the Russiagate scandal. GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Ed Martin is the President of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. He's a lawyer and holds advanced degrees in medical ethics and philosophy. Ed has served as Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party and as a member of the Republican National Committee. He's a Board Member of the Patriot Freedom Project, which provides support for the January 6 political prisoners. In 2016, Ed co authored with Phyllis Schlafly and Brett Decker the New York Times bestseller, The Conservative Case for Trump. X: Follow him on Twitter/X: @eagleedmartin and find him on https://www.linkedin.com/in/edmartinjr/ GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: George Papadopoulos is best-selling author of "Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump" and a former member of the foreign policy advisory panel to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Follow him on: Twitter/X: @GeorgePapa19

First up, Ian chats with Tasha of Project Mayday, a harm reduction project operating in so-called West Virginia. They discuss harm reduction strategies and the political framework of their approach to mutual aid. The conversation also touches upon co-existing in the public health and non-profit space without compromising their radical values and some of the many ways that drug policy and pharmaceutical marketing affect people who use drugs. Listeners can contact Project Mayday at the links below and should watch those spaces for news about the benefit show coming up on April 28th. Then, I spoke with Toby from Appalachians Against Pipelines and Madeline Ffitch, an activist recently arrested for locking down to a drill threatening to move the Mountain Valley Pipeline through Peters Mountain at Jefferson National Forest. We talked about the recent days of solidarity, direct actions against the MVP, repression of activists and related topics. Project Mayday Links Email: maydayx ( at )proton.me Website: https://maydayx.net Instagram: @projectmaydayx Twitter/X: @projectmaydayx Facebook: @projectmaydayx Threadless Web store: https://maydayx.threadless.com/ Bonfire web store: https://www.bonfire.com/store/project-mayday/ Paypal: @freiheit13 Cashapp: $xpmaydayx Venmo: @maydayx Appalachians Against Pipelines links Website: https://aapsolidarity.org Legal Defense Fund: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/applegaldefense?=2 AAP twitter:: @stopthemvp AAP instagram and facebok: @AppalachiansAgainstPipelines . ... . .. Featured Track: We Roll (instrumental) by Pete Rock from We Roll

On today's show Ed Martin discusses the latest in US and world politics. Later, Graham Hood gives a live update from the National Rally Against Reckless Renewables. GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Ed Martin is the President of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. He's a lawyer and holds advanced degrees in medical ethics and philosophy. Ed has served as Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party and as a member of the Republican National Committee. He's a Board Member of the Patriot Freedom Project, which provides support for the January 6 political prisoners. In 2016, Ed co authored with Phyllis Schlafly and Brett Decker the New York Times bestseller, The Conservative Case for Trump. Follow him on Twitter/X: @eagleedmartin and on Linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/edmartinjr/  GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Graham Hood was a Qantas pilot, employed by the airline for 32 years and had flown over 36,000 hours in his 53-year career, from crop dusting planes and DC-3s up to 737s, safely transporting 6 million people, flying 12 million miles and performing 22,000 take offs and landings. However, after the COVID-19 vaccine “no jab no job” policy, he steadfastly refused to comply and has since led the fight for millions of Australians against the vaccine mandates.

On today's show, Ed Martin discusses the latest developments in U.S. and world politics. GUEST OVERVIEW: Ed Martin is the President of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. He is a lawyer with advanced degrees in medical ethics and philosophy. Ed has served as Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party and as a member of the Republican National Committee. He is also a Board Member of the Patriot Freedom Project, which provides support for the January 6 political prisoners. In 2016, Ed co-authored the New York Times bestseller "The Conservative Case for Trump" with Phyllis Schlafly and Brett Decker. You can find him on Twitter/X: @eagleedmartin and on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/edmartinjr/.  

1.17.2024 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Battle for LA's 2nd Majority-Black Congressional Dist., MD Principal's Alleged Racist Remarks The battle over Lousiaina's second majority-black congressional district continues after the state legislature reneges on a bipartisan agreement on the proposed congressional maps. Louisiana State Representative Candace Newell and Jared Evans from the Legal Defense Fund are here to update us on the case and what can be expected during next week's special session.  Baltimore County, Maryland, Public Schools principal is allegedly recorded making derogatory remarks about staff, Black students, and Jewish families. According to findings from the Axios Vibes survey by The Harris Poll, Americans have a surprising degree of overall satisfaction with their economic situation. We'll talk to an economist about the survey's findings. Patriot Bank agrees to settlement with the Department of Justice over race-based lending allegations in Tennessee.  Vice President Kamala Harris was on The View today, discussing why they should get a second term in the White House. She also responds to Nikki Haley, saying America has never been a racist country.  Download the Black Star Network app at http://www.blackstarnetwork.com! We're on iOS, AppleTV, Android, AndroidTV, Roku, FireTV, XBox and SamsungTV. The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's show, Ed Martin discusses the latest in US and world politics. Later, Shane Healy discusses the Israel/Palestine conflict. GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Ed Martin is the President of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. He is a lawyer with advanced degrees in medical ethics and philosophy. Ed has served as Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party and as a member of the Republican National Committee. He is a Board Member of the Patriot Freedom Project, which provides support for the January 6 political prisoners. In 2016, Ed co-authored with Phyllis Schlafly and Brett Decker the New York Times bestseller, "The Conservative Case for Trump." You can find more about him on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/edmartinjr/ or on Twitter/X: @eagleedmartin. GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Shane Healy is a terrorism and youth justice expert. He is a former Australian Defence Force Special Operations Command intelligence operator, a former resident of Alice Springs, and an Indigenous man originally from western NSW.

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the very weak financial report filed by Donald Trump's legal defense fund showing very little money raised and money being spent on Mar-A-Lago banquets. Go to https://PrizePicks.com/meidas and use code meidas for a first deposit match up to $100! Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! 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 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's show, Ed Martin discusses the latest in US and world politics. GUEST OVERVIEW: Ed Martin is the President of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. He's a lawyer and holds advanced degrees in medical ethics and philosophy. Ed has served as Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party and as a member of the Republican National Committee. He's a Board Member of the Patriot Freedom Project, which provides support for the January 6 political prisoners. In 2016, Ed co authored with Phyllis Schlafly and Brett Decker the New York Times bestseller, The Conservative Case for Trump. https://www.linkedin.com/in/edmartinjr/ X: @eagleedmartin  

10.20.2023 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: LA Congressional Map Battle, Jim Jordan is Out, Georgia's Cop City Fight, 3rd Trump Ally Guilty Plea LIVE from Stonecrest, Georgia, at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, where the McDonald's Inspiration Celebration Gospel Tour will be later tonight.  Here's what's coming Up on Roland Martin Unfiltered streaming live on the Black Star Network. The Supreme Court is allowing the Louisiana Republican-drawn congressional map that a federal judge said diluted the power of Black voters to remain as an appeal moves through the lower courts.  An attorney from the Legal Defense Fund is here to explain what's next for the state refusing to comply.  House Republicans drop Jim Jordan as their nominee for speaker after failing to secure the gavel for the third time.  We'll look at who is stepping up to lead the house.  Opposition to Atlanta's "Cop City" says the city council is not moving forward to verify thousands of signatures to force a voter referendum to halt the complex.  We'll talk to one of the organizers of #StopCopCity. A third co-defendant in the Georgia election interference case pleads guilty during jury selection.  You'll hear attorney  Kenneth Chesebro admit to his guilt in open court.   A New York judge slaps Donald Trump with a fine for violating a gag order.  Download the Black Star Network app at http://www.blackstarnetwork.com! We're on iOS, AppleTV, Android, AndroidTV, Roku, FireTV, XBox and SamsungTV. The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

10.12.2023 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: SCOTUS S.C. Gerrymandering Case, Penn. Elections, Texas Student w/Locs Going to Alternative School The U.S. Supreme Court must decide if South Carolina's congressional maps threaten to diminish Black voters.  The lead Legal Defense Fund attorney and the plaintiff are here to discuss the case.  Pennsylvania voters will be voting for candidates to fill the state's courts.  The Chair of the state's Democratic party will be here to let us know how those elections are shaping up.  The Black Texas teen who spent more than a month in school suspension over his dreadlocks is heading to a disciplinary alternative education program.  His mom and their attorney will join us.  Apparently, Republican House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan did not get enough of Georiga District Attorney Fani Willis getting into his ass about demanding records related to the election indictment.   It's round two of Jordan versus Willis.  Vice President Kamala Harris continues her "Fight for Our Freedoms" College Tour. And we're remembering the youngest of the Tulsa Race Massacre, who has died at age 102. Download the Black Star Network app at http://www.blackstarnetwork.com! We're on iOS, AppleTV, Android, AndroidTV, Roku, FireTV, XBox and SamsungTV. The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

9.27.2023 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Ala. Congressional Maps, Childcare Funding Expiring, PA Judge Dismisses Murder Charges On Fmr. Cop, Doing Business in Liberia The battle over Alabama's congressional districts continues after the Supreme Court denied the emergency request to keep Republican-drawn congressional lines.  A court-appointed master proposes three options, but the black caucus of the state's Democratic Party objects to the plans and wants to offer its own redistricting map.  Janai Nelson, the President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund, is here to help us unpack it all.   We are days away from a government shutdown if Congress cannot agree on a plan to keep it running.  We'll look at what's keeping the House from getting on one accord.  Federal Childcare funding is set to expire this Saturday, leaving millions of families without childcare options.  I'll talk to the President and CEO of The Children's Defense Fund to find out what choices those families will have.  A Pennsylvania judge dismisses the murder charges against a former cop who shot motorist Eddie Irizarry within seconds.  It's Time to Bring the Funk on Roland Martin Unfiltered streaming live on the Black Star Network.  Let's go. Download the #BlackStarNetwork app on iOS, AppleTV, Android, Android TV, Roku, FireTV, SamsungTV and XBox  http://www.blackstarnetwork.com The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platforms covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

9.5.2023 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Federal Court Rejects AL Congressional Map, La Gov. Debate Boycott, Deion's Win, RMU 5th Anniversary Alabama Republicans just don't know when to quit.  Federal judges struck down the state's new congressional map that includes only one majority-Black district, defying a Supreme Court order.  We'll talk to a fellow from the Legal Defense Fund working closely with the case about what's next.  Tennessee Representative Justin J. Pearson will be here to discuss last week's scuffle with House Speaker Cameron Sexton.  Louisiana Republicans are mad about the Urban League of Louisiana's participation in Thursday's gubernatorial debate.  They are calling for all Republican candidates to boycott the debate because they believe the Urban League's involvement raises questions about impartiality.   And Deion Sanders shut everybody up with Saturday's win over Texas Christian University.  We'll break down why folks are surprised by the defeat.  Download the Black Star Network app at http://www.blackstarnetwork.com! We're on iOS, AppleTV, Android, AndroidTV, Roku, FireTV, XBox and SamsungTV. The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Host Reed Galen is joined by Imran Ahmed, the Founder and CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). They discuss the landscape of online hate and how it has exponentially grown in the last decade, the role of social media in the dangerous rise of misinformation/disinformation, and why it is so important for the fabric of our society to hold social media companies accountable for their actions. Plus, the latest in CCDH's lawsuit with Elon Musk and Twitter. For more on this, be sure to check out the work of Imran Ahmed and CCDH…especially the Deadly By Design Report mentioned in this episode and more information on CCDH's Legal Defense Fund. If you'd like to connect with The Lincoln Project, send an email to podcast@lincolnproject.us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jess Jonas, Chief Legal Officer of the Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund joins me to chat: Overview the Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund - supported by Jack Dorsey, Alex Morcos, Martin White What's the threat with the Tulip Trading Case?  What are the open source licensing implications for developers?  Secondary case and Bitcoin copyright claims Site: Site: Bitcoindefense.org Sponsors: Swan Bitcoin CoinKite.com(code LIVERA) Mempool.space