Podcasts about Legal Information Institute

In 2017 our sister show, More Perfect aired an episode all about RBG, In September of 2020, we lost Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the annals of history. She was 87. Given the atmosphere around reproductive rights, gender and law, we decided to re-air this More Perfect episode dedicated to one of her cases. Because it offers a unique portrait of how one person can make change in the world. This is the story of how Ginsburg, as a young lawyer at the ACLU, convinced an all-male Supreme Court to take discrimination against women seriously - using a case on discrimination against men. Special thanks to Stephen Wiesenfeld, Alison Keith, and Bob Darcy.Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.EPISODE CREDITS: Reported by - Julia LongoriaProduced by - Julia LongoriaOriginal music and sound design contributed by - Alex OveringtonOur newsletter comes out every Wednesday. It includes short essays, recommendations, and details about other ways to interact with the show. Sign up (https://radiolab.org/newsletter)!Radiolab is supported by listeners like you. Support Radiolab by becoming a member of The Lab (https://members.radiolab.org/) today.Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @radiolab, and share your thoughts with us by emailing radiolab@wnyc.org.Leadership support for Radiolab's science programming is provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Science Sandbox, a Simons Foundation Initiative, and the John Templeton Foundation. Foundational support for Radiolab was provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, is 27 years old. For better or worse, it was designed to protect patients. But in reality, it has also hampered attorneys in their quest for medical records critical to ensuring fair compensation for injured workers. Guest Jared Vishney is the founder and CEO of the medical record retrieval technology company Arctrieval. He says most firms wait more than three months for medical records, some as much as four months or more. HIPAA regulations (and penalties) have turned medical record holders so risk averse that it's hard for patients to get their own records.  The rules around HIPAA and medical records are murky. How much time do institutions have to turn over requested records? How can attorneys and clients push providers to turn over records faster? Workers' Comp attorneys may find themselves caught in a disconnect between medical record technology and a web of legislation that is supposed to oversee electronic health record systems and rates for copies of those records. It's hard for clients and attorneys to know they're getting the full picture, and costs can run into the thousands of dollars.  Hear about tips and tricks for getting the records you need. If you've been frustrated by a tangled medical records system, this episode of Workers' Comp Matters is for you. Mentioned in this Episode: “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “Section 164.524 - Access of individuals to protected health information,” Legal Information Institute, Cornell University “Medical Records: Fees and Challenges Associated With Patient Access,” GAO report to Congress

HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, is 27 years old. For better or worse, it was designed to protect patients. But in reality, it has also hampered attorneys in their quest for medical records critical to ensuring fair compensation for injured workers. Guest Jared Vishney is the founder and CEO of the medical record retrieval technology company Arctrieval. He says most firms wait more than three months for medical records, some as much as four months or more. HIPAA regulations (and penalties) have turned medical record holders so risk averse that it's hard for patients to get their own records.  The rules around HIPAA and medical records are murky. How much time do institutions have to turn over requested records? How can attorneys and clients push providers to turn over records faster? Workers' Comp attorneys may find themselves caught in a disconnect between medical record technology and a web of legislation that is supposed to oversee electronic health record systems and rates for copies of those records. It's hard for clients and attorneys to know they're getting the full picture, and costs can run into the thousands of dollars.  Hear about tips and tricks for getting the records you need. If you've been frustrated by a tangled medical records system, this episode of Workers' Comp Matters is for you. Mentioned in this Episode: “Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “Section 164.524 - Access of individuals to protected health information,” Legal Information Institute, Cornell University “Medical Records: Fees and Challenges Associated With Patient Access,” GAO report to Congress

In Season 15, the SVU writers room decided to revisit the subject matter of the Season 12 All-Timer "Possessed," wondering what it would be like without a Bud the Ninja Pedo gleefully pawing at pics of younger incarnations of their vics or other pedos defending themselves at trial by using the "of course my ejack was all over this pornographic physical media" defense. The result here is harrowing. And, like, obviously, it probably should be. Yeah, it should be. But when it's played this straight, uhhhh, it's tough. It's also a pretty good platform for eventual White Lotus guest Meghann Fahy to strut her stuff.Sources:18 U.S. Code § 2259 - Mandatory restitution - Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 - Wikipedia Music:Divorcio Suave - "Munchy Business"Thanks to our gracious Munchies on Patreon: Jeremy S, Jaclyn O, Amy Z, Nikki B, Whitney C, D Reduble, Tony B, Zak B, Barry W, Karen D, Sara L, Miriam J, Drew D, Nicky R, Stuart, Jacqi B, Natalie T, Robyn S, Isabel P, Christine L, Amy A, Sean M, Jay S, Briley O, Asteria K, Suzanne B, Jason S, and Tim Y - y'all are the best!Be a Munchie, too! Support us on Patreon: patreon.com/munchmybensonFollow us on: BlueSky, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Post, and Reddit (Adam's Twitter/BlueSky and Josh's Twitter/BlueSky/Letterboxd/Substack)Join our Discord: Munch Casts ServerCheck out Munch Merch: Munch Merch at ZazzleCheck out our guest appearances on: Storytellers from Ratchet Book Club, …These Are There Stories (Adam and Josh), both of us on FMWL Pod (1st Time & 2nd Time), both of us talking about The Thin Man on Chick-Lit at the Movies, and Josh talking SVU/OC on Jacked Up Review ShowVisit Our Website: Munch My BensonEmail the podcast: munchmybenson@gmail.comNext Week's Episode: Season 8, Episode 12 "Outsider"This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5685940/advertisement

The law protects creators' original work against copycats, but it also leaves the door open for some kinds of copying. When a photographer sues the Andy Warhol Foundation for using her work without permission, the justices struggle not to play art critics as they decide the case. More Perfect explores how this star-studded case offers a look at how this Court actually makes decisions. Voices in the episode include: • David Hobbs — known as Mr. Mixx, co-founder of the hip-hop group 2 Live Crew • Jerry Saltz — senior art critic and columnist for New York magazine • Pierre Leval — judge on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit • Jeannie Suk Gersen — More Perfect legal advisor, Harvard Law professor, New Yorker writer • Lynn Goldsmith — photographer • Andy Warhol — as himself Learn more: • 1994: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. • 2023: Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith • "Toward A Fair Use Standard" by Pierre Leval • The Andy Warhol Foundation   Shadow dockets, term limits, amicus briefs — what puzzles you about the Supreme Court? What stories are you curious about? We want to answer your questions in our next season. Click here to leave us a voice memo. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Click here to donate to More Perfect. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram, Threads and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and X (Twitter) @moreperfect.

In 1902, a Swedish-American pastor named Henning Jacobson refused to get the smallpox vaccine. This launched a chain of events leading to two landmark Supreme Court cases, in which the Court considered the balancing act between individual liberty over our bodies and the collective good. A version of this story originally ran on The Experiment on March 21, 2021. Voices in the episode include: • Rev. Robin Lutjohann — pastor of Faith Lutheran Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts • Michael Willrich — Brandeis University history professor • Wendy Parmet — Northeastern University School of Law professor Learn more: • 1905: Jacobson v. Massachusetts • 1927: Buck v. Bell • 2022: National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration • 2022: Biden v. Missouri • "Pox: An American History" by Michael Willrich • "Constitutional Contagion: COVID, the Courts, and Public Health" by Wendy Parmet   Music by Ob (“Wold”), Parish Council (“Leaving the TV on at Night,” “Museum Weather,” “P Lachaise”), Alecs Pierce (“Harbour Music, Parts I & II”), Laundry (“Lawn Feeling”), water feature (“richard iii (duke of gloucester)”), Keyboard (“Mu”), and naran ratan (“Forevertime Journeys”), provided by Tasty Morsels. Additional music by Dieterich Buxtehude (“Prelude and Fugue in D Major”), Johannes Brahms (“Quintet for Clarinet, Two Violins, Viola, and Cello in B Minor”), and Andrew Eric Halford and Aidan Mark Laverty (“Edge of a Dream”).  Shadow dockets, term limits, amicus briefs — what puzzles you about the Supreme Court? What stories are you curious about? We want to answer your questions in our next season. Click here to leave us a voice memo. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram, Threads and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and X (Twitter) @moreperfect.

Dred Scott v. Sandford is one of the most infamous cases in Supreme Court history: in 1857, an enslaved person named Dred Scott filed a suit for his freedom and lost. In his decision, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney wrote that Black men “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” One Civil War and more than a century later, the Taneys and the Scotts reunite at a Hilton in Missouri to figure out what reconciliation looks like in the 21st century. Voices in the episode include: • Lynne Jackson — great-great-granddaughter of Dred and Harriet Scott, and president and founder of the Dred Scott Heritage Foundation • Dred Scott Madison — great-great-grandson of Dred Scott • Barbara McGregory — great-great-granddaughter of Dred Scott • Charlie Taney — great-great-grandnephew of Roger Brooke Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who wrote the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision • Richard Josey — Manager of Programs at the Minnesota Historical Society Learn more: • 1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford • The Dred Scott Heritage Foundation   Special thanks to Kate Taney Billingsley, whose play, "A Man of His Time," inspired the episode; and to Soren Shade for production help. Additional music for this episode by Gyan Riley. Shadow dockets, term limits, amicus briefs — what puzzles you about the Supreme Court? What stories are you curious about? We want to answer your questions in our next season. Click here to leave us a voice memo. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram, Threads and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

David Souter is one the most private, low-profile justices ever to have served on the Supreme Court. He rarely gives interviews or speeches. Yet his tenure was anything but low profile. Deemed a “home run” nominee by Republicans, Souter defied partisan expectations on the bench and ultimately ceded his seat to a Democratic president. In this episode, the story of how “No More Souters” became a rallying cry for Republicans and inspired a backlash that would change the Court forever. Voices in the episode include: • Ashley Lopez — NPR political correspondent • Anna Sale — host of WNYC Studios' Death Sex & Money podcast • Tinsley Yarbrough — author and former political science professor at East Carolina University • Heather Gerken — Dean of Yale Law School and former Justice Souter clerk • Kermit Roosevelt III — professor at University of Pennsylvania School of Law and former Justice Souter clerk • Judge Peter Rubin — Associate Justice on Massachusetts Appeals Court and former Justice Souter clerk • Governor John H. Sununu — former governor of New Hampshire and President George H.W. Bush's Chief of Staff Learn more: • 1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey • 1992: Lee v. Weisman • 2000: Bush v. Gore • 2009: Citizens United v. FEC   Shadow dockets, term limits, amicus briefs — what puzzles you about the Supreme Court? What stories are you curious about? We want to answer your questions in our next season. Click here to leave us a voice memo. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram, Threads and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

Recently, On the Media's Micah Loewinger was called to testify in court. He had reported on militia groups who'd helped lead the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Now the government was using his work as evidence in a case against them. Micah wanted nothing to do with it — he worried that participating in the trial would signal to sources that he couldn't be trusted, which would compromise his work. As he considered his options, he uncovered a 1972 case called Branzburg v. Hayes. It involved New York Times reporter Earl Caldwell, who was approached multiple times by the FBI to testify against sources in the Black Panther Party. His case — and its decision — transformed the relationship between journalists and the government. Voices in the episode include: • Micah Loewinger — correspondent for On the Media • Earl Caldwell — former New York Times reporter • Lee Levine — attorney and media law expert • Congressman Jamie Raskin — representing Maryland's 8th District Learn more: • 1972: Branzburg v. Hayes • Listen to On the Media's "Seditious Conspiracy" episode. Subscribe to On the Media here. Special thanks to the Maynard Institute For Journalism Education for allowing the use of its Earl Caldwell oral history.  Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

Last week, the Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act in a case called Haaland v. Brackeen. The decision comes almost exactly 10 years after the Supreme Court ruled in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, which planted the seed for last week's big ruling. To mark the new landmark decision, More Perfect re-airs the Radiolab episode that tells the story of two families, a painful history, and a young girl caught in the middle. Voices in the episode include: • Allison Herrera — KOSU Indigenous Affairs reporter • Matt and Melanie Capobianco — Veronica's adoptive parents • Dusten Brown — Veronica's biological father • Mark Fiddler — attorney for the Capobiancos • Marcia Zug — University of South Carolina School of Law professor • Bert Hirsch — attorney formerly of the Association on American Indian Affairs • Chrissi Nimmo — Deputy Attorney General for Cherokee Nation • Terry Cross — founding executive director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association (now serving as senior advisor) • Lori Alvino McGill — attorney for Christy Maldonado, Veronica's biological mother Learn more: • 2013: Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl • 2023: Haaland v. Brackeen • "Baby Veronica belongs with her adoptive parents" by Christy Maldonado • "Doing What's Best for the Tribe" by Marcia Zug • "The Court Got Baby Veronica Wrong" by Marcia Zug • "A Wrenching Adoption Case" by The New York Times Editorial Board • National Indian Child Welfare Association • In Trust podcast, reported by Allison Herrera   Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

Now that the “viability line” in pregnancy — as defined by Roe v. Wade — is no longer federal law, lawmakers and lawyers are coming up with new frameworks for abortion access at a dizzying rate. In this second part of our series, More Perfect asks: what if abortion law wasn't shaped by men at the Supreme Court, but instead by people who know what it's like to be pregnant, to have abortions, and to lose pregnancies? We hear from women on the front lines of the next legal battle over abortion in America. Voices in the episode include: • Mary J. Browning — pro bono lawyer for The Justice Foundation • Dr. Shelley Sella — OBGYN (retired) • Greer Donley — University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor • Jill Wieber Lens — University of Arkansas School of Law professor Learn more: • 1973: Roe v. Wade • 2022: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization • Listen to Part 1: The Viability Line   Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

When the justices heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the landmark abortion case, one word came up more than any other: viability. The viability line was at the core of Roe v. Wade, and it's been entrenched in the abortion rights movement ever since. But no one seems to remember how this idea made its way into the abortion debate in the first place. This week on More Perfect, we trace it back to the source and discover how a clerk and a couple of judges turned a fuzzy medical concept into a hard legal line. Voices in the episode include: • George Frampton — former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun • Judge Jon Newman — Second Circuit Court of Appeals • Khiara Bridges — UC Berkeley School of Law professor • Alex J. Harris — lawyer, former member of the Joshua Generation Learn more: • 1973: Roe v. Wade • 2022: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization   Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

This week, we revisit one of the most important Supreme Court cases you've probably never heard of: Baker v. Carr, a redistricting case from the 1960s, which challenged the justices to consider what might happen if they stepped into the world of electoral politics. It's a case so stressful that it pushed one justice to a nervous breakdown, put another justice in the hospital, brought a boiling feud to a head, and changed the course of the Supreme Court — and the nation — forever. Voices in the episode include: • Tara Grove — More Perfect legal advisor, University of Texas at Austin law professor • Guy-Uriel Charles — Harvard law professor • Louis Michael Seidman — Georgetown law school professor • Sam Issacharoff — NYU law school professor • Craig A. Smith — PennWest California humanities professor and Charles Whittaker's biographer • J. Douglas Smith — Author of "On Democracy's Doorstep" • Alan Kohn — Former Supreme Court clerk for Charles Whittaker (1957 term) • Kent Whittaker — Charles Whittaker's son • Kate Whittaker — Charles Whittaker's granddaughter Learn more: • 1962: Baker v. Carr • 2000: Bush v. Gore • 2016: Evenwel v. Abbott Music in this episode by Gyan Riley, Alex Overington, David Herman, Tobin Low and Jad Abumrad.   Archival interviews with Justice William O. Douglas come from the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections at Princeton University Library. Special thanks to Jerry Goldman and to Whittaker's clerks: Heywood Davis, Jerry Libin and James Adler. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

Unlike other branches of government, the Supreme Court operates with almost no oversight. No cameras are allowed in the courtroom, no binding code of ethics, and records of their activities are incredibly hard to get. So how do reporters uncover the activities of the nine most powerful judges in the country? Live from the Logan Symposium on Investigative Reporting at UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Journalism, host Julia Longoria talks to journalists behind bombshell investigations of the Court and its justices and how Clarence Thomas' personal relationships intersect with his professional life. Voices in the episode include: • Jo Becker — New York Times reporter in the investigative unit • Justin Elliott — ProPublica reporter Learn more: • "The Long Crusade of Clarence and Ginni Thomas" by Danny Hakim and Jo Becker • "Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire" by Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski • "Billionaire Harlan Crow bought property from Clarence Thomas. The Justice didn't disclose the deal" by by Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan and Alex Mierjeski  Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

To many Americans, Clarence Thomas makes no sense. For more than 30 years on the Court, he seems to have been on a mission — to take away rights that benefit Black people. As a young man, though, Thomas listened to records of Malcolm X speeches on a loop and strongly identified with the tenets of Black Nationalism. This week on More Perfect, we dig into his writings and lectures, talk to scholars and confidants, and explore his past, all in an attempt to answer: what does Clarence Thomas think Clarence Thomas is doing? Voices in the episode include: • Juan Williams — Senior Political Analyst at Fox News • Corey Robin — Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center • Angela Onwuachi-Willig — Dean of Boston University School of Law • Stephen F. Smith — Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School Learn more: • 1993: Graham v. Collins • 1994: Holder v. Hall • 1999: Chicago v. Morales • 2003: Grutter v. Bollinger • 2022: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College • 2022: Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina • “The Enigma of Clarence Thomas” by Corey Robin • “Black Conservatives, Center Stage” by Juan Williams • “Just Another Brother on the SCT?: What Justice Clarence Thomas Teaches Us About the Influence of Racial Identity” by Angela Onwuachi-Willig • “Clarence X?: The Black Nationalist Behind Justice Thomas's Constitutionalism” by Stephen F. Smith • “My Grandfather's Son” by Justice Clarence Thomas Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

Host Julia Longoria is back with a new season of More Perfect, from WNYC Studios. We're taught the Supreme Court was designed to be above the fray of politics. But at a time when partisanship seeps into every pore of American life, are the nine justices living up to that promise? More Perfect is a guide to the current moment on the Court. The show brings the highest court of the land down to earth, telling the human dramas at the Court that shape so many aspects of American life — from our religious freedom to our artistic expression, from our reproductive choices to our voice in democracy. In the season trailer, Julia returns to the place where she first fell in love with SCOTUS: high school. Subscribe to the podcast here. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow the show on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

More than 30 years ago, a Native American man named Al Smith was fired for ingesting peyote at a religious ceremony. When his battle made it to the Supreme Court, the decision set off a thorny debate over when religious people get to sidestep the law — a debate we're still having today. Voices in the episode include: • Garrett Epps — Professor of Practice at the University of Oregon Law School • Ka'ila Farrell-Smith — Al Smith's daughter, visual artist • Jane Farrell — Al Smith's widow, retired early childhood specialist • Galen Black — Al Smith's former coworker • Steven C. Moore — senior staff attorney at the Native American Rights Fund • Craig J. Dorsay — lawyer who argued Al Smith's case before the Supreme Court • Dan Mach — director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief Learn more: • 1963: Sherbert v. Verner • 1990: Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith • 2022: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis • Peyote vs the State: Religious Freedom On Trial, Garrett Epps • Factsheet: Religious Freedom Restoration Act Of 1993, The Bridge Initiative at Georgetown University • Our History, the Klamath Tribes   Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

To kick off the new season, host Julia Longoria returns to high school, where she first fell in love with the Supreme Court. She was a star on her high school's nationally-ranked “Constitution team” (read: nerd Super Bowl). For Julia, the Court represented a place where two sides of an issue could be discussed and debated. A lot has changed since then — and public perception around the Court is polarized, to say the least. Which is why we're taking a cue from high schoolers: this season on More Perfect, we're questioning everything. Learn more: • The We the People, The Citizen, and the Constitution Program Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Follow us on Instagram and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.

CLICK HERE to listen to episode audio (5:06).Sections below are the following: Transcript of Audio Audio Notes and Acknowledgments ImagesExtra InformationSources Related Water Radio Episodes For Virginia Teachers (Relevant SOLs, etc.). Unless otherwise noted, all Web addresses mentioned were functional as of 3-31-23. TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO From the Cumberland Gap to the Atlantic Ocean, this is Virginia Water Radio for the weeks of April 3 and April 10, 2023.  This episode, the fifth in a series on water in U.S. civil rights history, begins an exploration of water connections to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. MUSIC – ~17 sec – instrumental. That's part of “Maple Leaf Rag,” composed by Scott Joplin and performed by Zachary Brewster-Geisz.   Scott Joplin, an African American from Texas who became known as the king of ragtime music, was born in 1868.  That year also brought the effective “birth” of the the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in July 1868.  Have a listen to the music for about 20 more seconds, and see if you know four areas of rights addressed by the amendment. MUSIC – ~22 sec – instrumental. If you guessed any of these, you're right: citizenship, privileges and immunities, due process, and equal protection.  Let's have a listen to the Section 1 of the amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.  No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Other sections of the amendment addressed citizens' right to vote, insurrection against the United States, Civil War debts and compensation, and finally—of great importance to future civil rights legislation—Congressional authority to enforce the amendment. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, in a 1987 speech, said the following about the 14th Amendment: quote, “While the Union survived the civil war, the Constitution did not.  In its place arose a new, more promising basis for justice and equality, the 14th Amendment, ensuring protection of the life, liberty, and property of all persons against deprivations without due process, and guaranteeing equal protection of the laws,” unquote. There may be no more important development in U.S. civil rights history—certainly in its legal history—than passage and ratification of the 14th Amendment.  Interestingly from a water perspective, the first U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the amendment, in 1873, addressed a law focused on water and public health; about 100 years later, water infrastructure was at issue in another significant federal court claim under the amendment; and water infrastructure is the subject of a 2022 complaint filed under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, for which the amendment is a significant constitutional foundation.  This episode's overview sets the stage for upcoming episodes on those three 14th Amendment water stories. Thanks to Zachary Brewster-Geisz for making a recording of “Maple Leaf Rag” available for public use, and we close with about 20 more seconds of that well-known Scott Joplin tune. MUSIC – ~22 sec – instrumental. SHIP'S BELL Virginia Water Radio is produced by the Virginia Water Resources Research Center, part of Virginia Tech's College of Natural Resources and Environment.  For more Virginia water sounds, music, or information, visit us online at virginiawaterradio.org, or call the Water Center at (540) 231-5624.  Thanks to Stewart Scales for his banjo version of “Cripple Creek” to open and close this episode.  In Blacksburg, I'm Alan Raflo, thanking you for listening, and wishing you health, wisdom, and good water. AUDIO NOTES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS “Maple Leaf Rag,” composed by Scott Joplin, was first published in 1899.  The recording heard in this Virginia Water Radio episode was by Zachary Brewster-Geisz, June 2006, made available on Free Music Archive, online at https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Scott_Joplin/Frog_Legs_Ragtime_Era_Favorites/03_-_scott_joplin_-_maple_leaf_rag/, as of 4-3-23, for use under Creative Commons Mark 1.0 License – Public Domain; more information on that Creative Commons License is available online at https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/. Click here if you'd like to hear the full version (1 min./11 sec.) of the “Cripple Creek” arrangement/performance by Stewart Scales that opens and closes this episode.  More information about Mr. Scales and the group New Standard, with which Mr. Scales plays, is available online at http://newstandardbluegrass.com. IMAGES Photographs of the June 1866 joint resolution in Congress proposing the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Images taken from the National Archives, online at https://www.docsteach.org/documents/document/fourteenth-amendment, as of 4/3/23.  The images are made available for use under the Creative Commons license “Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International”; more information about that Creative Commons license is available online at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. EXTRA INFORMATION ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT The following information about, and text of, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was taken from National Archives, “Milestone Documents: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868),” online at https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment. “Following the Civil War, Congress submitted to the states three amendments as part of its Reconstruction program to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens.  A major provision of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States,' thereby granting citizenship to formerly enslaved people. “Another equally important provision was the statement that ‘nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'  The right to due process of law and equal protection of the law now applied to both the federal and state governments. “On June 16, 1866, the House Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was submitted to the states.  On July 28, 1868, the 14th amendment was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State, ratified by the necessary 28 of the 37 States, and became part of the supreme law of the land.” Text of 14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

SOURCES A New Legacy - Podcast by Polly's sister: https://open.spotify.com/show/76E3r9JpLuL5hr3jFKWOFY?si=57244163aa1d4fe0 The Amazing Internet, Wikipedia. “Murder of Polly Klaas.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Jan. 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Polly_Klaas#Aftermath_and_legacy. “Three Strikes.” Edited by Nicole McCarthy, Et Al. Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, WEX Definitions Team, Sept. 2021, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/three_strikes#:~:text=Three%20strikes%2C%20or%20three%2Dstrikes,third%20violation%20of%20violent%20felonies. George, Evan. “Prop 36 and How California's 'Three Strikes' Law Came to Be.” KCRW, KCRW, 24 Oct. 2012, https://www.kcrw.com/news/articles/prop-36-and-how-californias-three-strikes-law-came-to-be. Levin, Sam. “Polly Klaas's Murder Fueled the 90s Crime Panic. Her Sisters Fear 'We're Repeating History'.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 22 Oct. 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/22/polly-klaas-sisters-criminal-justice-mass-incarceration. “Polly Klaas' Killer Survives Opiate Overdose on Death Row.” Edited by Associated Press, 3 Strikes Stops Repeat Offenders, 25 July 2006, http://threestrikes.org/polly-klaas-killer-survives-opiate-overdose-on-death-row/. The World Wide Web, Wikipedia. “Richard Allen Davis.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Jan. 2023, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Allen_Davis. “Richard Allen Davis.” Edited by Wikipedia Criminal Minds, Criminal Minds Wiki, 2022, https://criminalminds.fandom.com/wiki/Richard_Allen_Davis. Blanco, Juan Ignacio. “Richard Allen Davis: Murderpedia, the Encyclopedia of Murderers.” Richard Allen Davis | Murderpedia, the Encyclopedia of Murderers, 2022, https://murderpedia.org/male.D/d/davis-richard-allen.htm. Edited by Eve Reed, The Polly Klaas Foundation, 23 Feb. 2022, https://www.pollyklaas.org/. Schiraldi, Vincent, et al. “Three Strikes and You're Out, An Examination of the Impact of Three-Strike Laws.” Justice Policy Institute, 2003, https://justicepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/04-09_rep_threestrikesnatl_ac.pdf.pdf. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/tildeathdouspartpodcast/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/tildeathdouspartpodcast/support

In this episode, we cover one of our all time favorite Supreme Court justices, the one and only, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We discuss her education, her early career, the support she had from her partner, a couple of the many cases she tried, and her appointment to the Supreme Court. Then we talk about how she came to be known as RBG, her overall celebrity, her sharp yet articulate dissents, and how and why she continued to serve on the court despite various health concerns. Finally we wrap up with the huge impact that Ginsburg has had on this country, primarily in terms of equality rights and fighting for what is right. But we also talk about how her education and relationship paths can be an inspiration to many. Follow the podcast: Twitter: @BigRepPod Instagram: @BigReputationsPod Linktree: linktr.ee/bigreputatonspod   Become a Patreon supporter: patreon.com/bigreputationspod   Merch: https://www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/86669619 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hosts: Kimberly Fludd and Rebecca L. Salois Logo Design: Samantha Marmolejo Music: Shawn P. Russell Sound Consultant and Mixing: Shawn P. Russell Recording and Editing: Rebecca L. Salois ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sources: RBG, a 2018 Documentary directed by Betsy West and Julie Cohen (Amazon Prime) Ruth: Justice Ginsburg in Her Own Words, a 2019 Documentary directed by Freida Lee Mock (She also did the 2013 Anita Hill doc Anita: Speaking Truth to Power) My Own Words, by Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Mary Hartnett and Wendy W. Williams “How Ruth Bader Ginsburg Became the ‘Notorious RBG'” by Lauren Kelley for Rolling Stone Oyez.com, a free law project from Cornell's Legal Information Institute, so many court cases are listed and explain “The Class of RBG” by Dahlia Lithwick and Molly Olmstead  “Ruth Bader Ginsburg & Dissents: What's a Dissent?” “Heavyweight: How Ruth Bader Ginsburg has moved the Supreme Court” by Jeffrey Toobin Notorious RBG on Tumblr

Folge 16: Vorwahlen Teil 2, der Supreme Court und ein neues Waffengesetz (aufgenommen am 28. Juli 2022) Housekeeping On-Demand-Seminar: Summer School 2022: Democracy under Attack. Die USA in Zeiten der Krisen Vorwahlen in den USA, Teil 2 https://twitter.com/CasMudde/status/1548758573727055872?s=20&t=0HH-RdGBLsk3_V8uSUfCaw https://host2.adimpact.com/admo/viewer/539303ca-49a8-4d69-88a6-75dc1280f623/ Democratic Governors Association Boosting Bailey in New Ad Campaign (The Illinoize) 'It's disgusting': Kinzinger slams Dems backing election-deniers in GOP primaries (Politico) https://twitter.com/DougDucey/status/1550576131111149568 Pence endorsement in Ariz. governor's race puts him at odds with Trump (The Washington Post). https://twitter.com/LaineyWasi/status/1551900702192041984 What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State, FiveThirtyEight. Days before his South Carolina primary, a G.O.P. congressman who voted to impeach Trump stands by his vote (The New York Times) Battles over Israel divide Democratic primaries (Politico) New MI-11 poll shows Stevens leading Levin by 27 points (Jewish Insider) Running Again (United Democracy Project) Donna Edwards gets help from Pelosi to swat at attack ad tied to AIPAC (The Washington Post) Der Supreme Court und seine gefällten Entscheidungen “It's been a devestating several weeks”: Wisconsin doctors cross state lines to navigate post-roe abortion ban (Vanity Fair) Ketanji Brown Jackson sworn in as first Black woman on the Supreme Court (NPR) How the Christian right took over the judiciary and changed America (The Guardian) One man's outsized role in shaping the Supreme Court and overturning Roe (NPR) An Extraordinary Winning Streak for Religion at the Supreme Court (New York Times) Praying Coach v. District That Suspended Him: What's Next in Fight Over Religious Expression (Education Week) THE ROBERTS COURT AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR RELIGION: A STATISTICAL PORTRAIT (Supreme Court Review) The Supreme Court Sabotages Efforts to Protect Public Health and Safety (New York Times) Here's what's in Biden's executive order on abortion rights (CNN) Republicans stay mum as Senate pushes toward same-sex marriage vote (Washington Post) Same-Sex Marriage Support Inches Up to New High of 71% (Gallup) Harvard Affirmative Action, Gay Rights Cases Are Next Up at Supreme Court (Bloomberg) Address by Justice Samuel Alito [2020 NLC Live] (Video, Federalist Society) SCOTUS: Moore v. Harper The ‘Independent State Legislature Theory,' Explained (Brennan Center for Justice), Moore v. Harper (SCOTUSblog), Is Democracy Constitutional? (The Atlantic) https://twitter.com/Thom_Hartmann/status/1543079225254559744 https://twitter.com/mlewandowsky/status/1543812201630339072 Das neue Waffengesetz „Bipartisan Safer Communities Act“ Why now? How four senators finally got a gun deal no one thought was possible (CNN) Bipartisan Senate group releases bill text for gun safety deal (Axios) 18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts (Legal Information Institute) https://www.schoolsafety.gov Transatlantic Treat Kapitelbild: © Hudson Rowen What Has 6 Legs, 2 Eyes and 158,500 Votes? This ‘I Voted' Sticker. (The New York Times)I Voted Sticker Contest (Ulster County Board of Elections) 14-Year-Old's Unique 'I Voted' Sticker Design Sweeps New York Contest, Resembling 'Craziness of Politics' (People)

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, Congress has signed four laws that send enormous amounts of money and weapons to Ukraine, attempting to punish Russia for President Putin's invasion. In this episode, we examine these laws to find out where our money will actually go and attempt to understand the shifting goals of the Biden administration. The big picture, as it's being explained to Congress, differs from what we're being sold. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Content Ukraine and Russia CD249: A Few Good Laws CD248: Understanding the Enemy CD244: Keeping Ukraine CD229: Target Belarus CD167: Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE CD068: Ukraine Aid Bill CD067: What Do We Want In Ukraine? Syria CD172: The Illegal Bombing of Syria CD108: Regime Change CD041: Why Attack Syria? World Trade System What Is the World Trade System? CD230: Pacific Deterrence Initiative CD102: The World Trade Organization: COOL? Russian Blockade Shane Harris. May 24, 2022. “U.S. intelligence document shows Russian naval blockade of Ukraine.” The Washington Post. NATO Expansion Jim Garamone. Jun 1, 2022. “Russia Forcing Changes to NATO Strategic Concepts.” U.S. Department of Defense News. Matthew Lee. May 27, 2022. “US: Turkey's NATO issues with Sweden, Finland will be fixed.” AP News. Ted Kemp. May 19, 2022. “Two maps show NATO's growth — and Russia's isolation — since 1990.” CNBC. U.S. Involvement in Ukraine Helene Cooper, Eric Schmitt and Julian E. Barnes. May 5, 2022. “U.S. Intelligence Helped Ukraine Strike Russian Flagship, Officials Say.” The New York Times. Julian E. Barnes, Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt. May 4, 2022. “U.S. Intelligence Is Helping Ukraine Kill Russian Generals, Officials Say.” The New York Times. Private Security Contractors Christopher Caldwell. May 31, 2022. “The War in Ukraine May Be Impossible to Stop. And the U.S. Deserves Much of the Blame.” The New York Times. Joaquin Sapien and Joshua Kaplan. May 27, 2022. “How the U.S. Has Struggled to Stop the Growth of a Shadowy Russian Private Army.” ProPublica. H.R. 7691 Background How It Passed Glenn Greenwald. May 13, 2022. “The Bizarre, Unanimous Dem Support for the $40b War Package to Raytheon and CIA: ‘For Ukraine.'” Glenn Greenwald on Substack. Catie Edmondson and Emily Cochrane. May 10, 2022. “House Passes $40 Billion More in Ukraine Aid, With Few Questions Asked.” The New York Times. Republican Holdouts Glenn Greenwald and Anthony Tobin. May 24, 2022. “Twenty-Two House Republicans Demand Accountability on Biden's $40b War Spending.” Glenn Greenwald on Substack. Amy Cheng and Eugene Scott. May 13, 2022. “Rand Paul, lone Senate holdout, delays vote on Ukraine aid to next week.” The Washington Post. Morgan Watkins. May 13, 2022. “Sen. Rand Paul stalls $40 billion in aid for Ukraine, breaking with Mitch McConnell USA Today. Stephen Semler. May 26, 2022. “The Ukraine Aid Bill Is a Massive Windfall for US Military Contractors.” Jacobin. Biden Signs in South Korea Biden signs Ukraine Bill and Access to Baby Formula Act in South Korea. Reddit. Kate Sullivan. May 20, 2022. “Flying the Ukraine aid bill to South Korea for Biden's signature isn't unheard of. It also may not be totally necessary.” CNN. How Much Money, and Where Will It Go? Stephen Semler. May 23, 2022. “A breakdown of the Ukraine aid bill.” Speaking Security on Substack. “CBO Estimate for H.R. 7691, Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022, as Passed by the House of Representatives on May 10, 2022.” May 11 2022. Congressional Budget Office. Christina Arabia, Andrew Bowen, and Cory Welt. Updated Apr 29, 2022. “U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine.” [IF12040] Congressional Research Service. “22 U.S. Code § 2346 - Authority.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell School of Law. Representatives' Raytheon and Lockheed Martin Stocks Kimberly Leonard. May 19, 2022. “20 members of Congress personally invest in top weapons contractors that'll profit from the just-passed $40 billion Ukraine aid package.” Insider. Kimberly Leonard. Mar 21, 2022. “GOP Rep. John Rutherford of Florida bought Raytheon stock the same day Russia invaded Ukraine.” Insider. Marjorie Taylor Green [@RepMTG]. Feb 24, 2022. “War is big business to our leaders.” Twitter. “Florida's 4th Congressional District.” GovTrack. “Rules Based Order” Anthony Dworkin. Sep 8, 2020. “Why America is facing off against the International Criminal Court.” “History of the multilateral trading system.” *The World Trade Organization “Facts: Global Inequality” Inequality.org “Timeline: Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin.” Apr 23, 2007. NPR. Crimea Kenneth Rapoza. Mar 20, 2015. One Year After Russia Annexed Crimea, Locals Prefer Moscow To Kiev Forbes. “Crimea exit poll: About 93% back Russia union. March 16, 2014. BBC. Shifting Strategies Economic War Larry Elliott. Jun 2, 2022. “Russia is winning the economic war - and Putin is no closer to withdrawing troops. The Guardian. Nigel Gould-Davies. May 12, 2022. “We Must Make Sure Russia Finishes This War in a Worse Position Than Before” The New York Times. Weapons Escalation Jake Johnson. Jun 1, 2022. “'Slippery Slope... Just Got a Lot Steeper': US to Send Ukraine Advanced Missiles as Russia Holds Nuke Drills.” Common Dreams. C. Todd Lopez. Jun 1, 2022. “Advanced Rocket Launcher System Heads to Ukraine.” U.S. Department of Defense News. Greg Norman. Jun 1, 2022. “Russia stages nuclear drills after US announces rockets to Ukraine.” Fox News. Christian Esch et al. May 30, 2022. “What's Next for Ukraine? The West Tries to Figure Out What Peace Might Look Like.” Spiegel International. See Image. Alastair Gale. May 24, 2022. “China and Russia Sent Bombers Near Japan as Biden Visited Tokyo.” The Wall Street Journal. Mike Stone. Mar 11, 2022. “Exclusive: Pentagon revives team to speed arms to Ukraine and allies, sources say.” Reuters. Secretary Austin and the Pentagon Jim Garamone. May 20, 2022. “Austin to Host Second Ukraine Contact Group Meeting Monday.” U.S. Department of Defense News. Natasha Bertrand et al. Apr 26, 2022. “Austin's assertion that US wants to ‘weaken' Russia underlines Biden strategy shift.” CNN. David Sanger. Apr 25, 2022. “Behind Austin's Call for a ‘Weakened' Russia, Hints of a Shift.” The New York Times. Mike Stone. Apr 12, 2022. “Pentagon asks top 8 U.S. weapons makers to meet on Ukraine -sources.” Reuters. Glenn Greenwald. Dec 8, 2020. “Biden's Choice For Pentagon Chief Further Erodes a Key U.S. Norm: Civilian Control.” Glenn Greenwald on Substack. Democrats Still All In Marc Santora. May 1, 2022. “Pelosi and Democratic lawmakers vow the U.S. will stand with Ukraine. The New York Times. RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service. May 1, 2022. “Civilians Evacuated From Mariupol; U.S. House Speaker Pelosi Visits Kyiv.” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. “Ukraine war: Joe Biden calls for removal of Vladimir Putin in angry speech.” Mar 26, 2022. Sky News. The Laws H.R. 7691: Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022 House Vote: 368-57 Senate Vote: 86-11 Transcript of House Debate S.3522: Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 Passed by Voice Vote in the Senate House Vote 417-10 House "Debate" H.R.6968 - Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act Senate Vote: 100-0 House Vote: 413-9 House Debate H.R.7108: Suspending Normal Trade Relations with Russia and Belarus Act Senate Vote: 100-0 (amended the original House bill) Final House Vote: 424-8 House debate 1 (on original version) House debate 2 (final version) Audio Sources Joe Manchin at the World Economic Forum's meeting in Davos May 23, 2022 Clips Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): Speaking about Ukraine, first what Putin, Putin's war on Ukraine and Ukraine's determination, resolving the sacrifices they've made for the cause of freedom has united the whole world, that it's united, US Senate and Congress, I think like nothing I've seen in my lifetime. I think we're totally committed to supporting Ukraine, in every way possible, as long as we have the rest of NATO and the free world helping. I think we're all in this together. And I am totally committed as one person to seeing Ukraine to the end with a win, not basically resolving in some type of a treaty. I don't think that is where we are and where we should be. Reporter: Can I just follow up and ask you what you mean by a win for Ukraine? ** Sen. Joe Manchin:** I mean, basically moving Putin back to Russia and hopefully getting rid of Putin. The Ukraine Crisis: Implications for U.S. Policy in the Indo-Pacific May 19, 2022 Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, Central Asia, and Nonproliferation Witnesses: Charles Edel, Ph.D., Australia Chair and Senior Adviser, Center for Strategic and International Studies Bonny Lin, Ph.D., Director, China Power Project, Center for Strategic and International Studies Tanvi Madan, Ph.D.Director, The India Project, Brookings Institution Dan Blumenthal, Ph.D., Senior Fellow and Director of Asian Studies, American Enterprise Institute Clips 6:57 Tanvi Madan: One implication that is already evident, most visibly in Sri Lanka, is the adverse economic impact. The rise in commodity prices in particular has led to fiscal food and energy security concerns and these, in turn, could have political implications and could create a strategic vacuum. 7:15 Tanvi Madan: A separate and longer term economic impact of the crisis could be renewed goals, perhaps especially in India, for self reliance and building resilience not just against Chinese pressure, but also against Western sanctions. 7:28 Tanvi Madan: The second potential implication of the Russia-Ukraine war could be that Beijing might seek to take advantage in the Indo-Pacific while the world's focus is on Europe, between the Taiwan or the East or South China Sea contingencies. The contingency that would have the most direct impact in South Asia would be further action by the PLA at the China-India boundary, or at the Bhutan-China boundary that could draw in India. This potential for Sino-Indian crisis escalation has indeed shaped Delhi's response to the Russia-Ukraine war. Despite its recent diversification efforts, the Indian military continues to be dependent, if not over dependent, on Russia for supplies and spare parts for crucial frontline equipment. India has also been concerned about moving Moscow away from neutrality towards taking China's side. Nonetheless, there is simultaneously concern that Russia's war with Ukraine might, in any case, make Moscow more beholden to Beijing and also less able to supply India, and that will have implications for India's military readiness. 10:10 Tanvi Madan: The fourth implication in South Asia could flow from the war's effect on the Russia-China relationship flows. The Sino-Russian ties in recent years have benefited Pakistan. However, they have been of great concern to India. If China-Russia relations deepened further, it could lead to increased Indian concern about Russian reliability. And a Dheli that is concerned about Moscow's ability and willingness to supply India militarily or supported in international forums will seek alternative partners and suppliers a potential opportunity for the US as well as its allies and partners. 18:15 Bonny Lin: China has shifted its position on the Ukraine conflict to be less fully pro Russia. Xi Jinping has expressed that he is deeply grieved by the outbreak of war. China has engaged in diplomacy, called for a ceasefire, proposed a six point humanitarian initiative, and provided humanitarian aid to Ukraine. China's position on Ukraine, however, is far from neutral. China has not condemned Russia or called its aggression an evasion. Xi has yet to speak to President Zelenskyy. There is no evidence that China has sought to pressure Russia in any way or form. China has amplified Russian disinformation and pushed back against Western sanctions. To date, Beijing has not provided direct military support to Russia and has not engaged in systemic efforts to help Russia evade sanctions. However, China's ambassador to Russia has encouraged Chinese companies to quote "fill the void in the Russian market." 19:14 Bonny Lin: The Ukraine crisis has reinforced China's view that US military expansion could provoke conflict in the Indo-Pacific. Chinese interlocutors have voiced concern that the United States and NATO are fighting Russia today, but might fight China next. China views NATO expansion as one of the key causes of the Korean conflict and sees parallels between NATO activities in Europe and US efforts in the Indo-Pacific. Beijing is worried that increasing US and ally support for Taiwan and other regional allies and partners elevates the risk of US-China military confrontation. This pessimistic assessment is why Beijing will continue to stand by Russia as a close strategic partner. 19:56 Bonny Lin: The Ukraine crisis has reinforced and strengthened China's desire to be more self reliant. China is investing more to ensure the security of food, energy, and raw materials. Beijing is also seeking more resilient industrial supply chains, as well as PRC-led systems, including alternatives to Swift. At the same time, Beijing is likely to further cultivate dependencies on China, such that any potential Western led sanctions on China or international-community-led sanctions on China in the future will be painful to the West and difficult to sustain. 21:15 Bonny Lin: China has observed that Russia put its nuclear and strategic forces on high alert and NATO did not send conventional forces to Ukraine. This is leading China to question its nuclear policy and posture. 21:57 Bonny Lin: As Beijing watches the Western and particularly G7-led unity among advanced democracies, it is also seeing that a number of countries in the developing world are not joining in on the sanctions. As a result, Beijing has tried to increase its influence and in many ways building on Russian influence in developing regions. And Beijing is likely to try to get all that influence moving forward. 24:24 Dan Blumenthal: China took the opportunity of Russia's invasion on February 4 to lay out a document that criticizes, very specifically, almost all aspects of United States global policy. Very specifically, including Oculus for NATO enlargement to Oculus to the Indo Pacific strategy. It got Russia to sign up to Xi Jinping's theory that we're in a new era of geopolitics that will replace US leadership, that US leadership is faulty and it's dividing the world into blocks such as NATO, that NATO expansion is the problem, that Indo-Pacific strategy is the same thing as NATO expansion. 25:45 Dan Blumenthal: We should take very seriously what they say, particularly in Chinese, and what they're saying is very clearly pro-Russia and very clear, specific, searing critiques of the US-led world order. 26:47 Dan Blumenthal: And frankly, while the West is unified, and the US and the West and some of our Asian allies are unified, most of the rest of the world is not with us on this issue of China and Russia being these authoritarian, revisionist great powers, and that's a real problem. Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism May 18, 2022 House Committee on Foreign Affairs: Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism Witnesses: Dr. Hanna Notte, Senior Research Associate, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Dr. Frederic Wehrey, Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Caitlin Welsh, Director of the Global Food Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies Grant Rumley, Senior Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Clips 12:55 Hanna Notte: First, Moscow's military presence in Syria has given it a buffer zone on its southern flank to counter perceived threats from within the region, but also to deter NATO outside the European theater. And second, Russia has turned to the region to diversify its economic relations with a focus on arms sales, civilian nuclear exports and wheat supplies. And in building influence, Russia has largely followed what I call a low cost high disruption approach, also using hybrid tactics such as private military companies and disinformation. Now, these Russian interests in the region will not fundamentally change with the invasion of Ukraine. Today, Russia's regional diplomacy remains highly active, aimed at offsetting the impact of Western sanctions and demonstrating that Moscow is not isolated internationally. 14:09 Hanna Notte: Starting with arms control and Non-Proliferation, though Moscow seemed intent on spoiling negotiations to restore the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] in early March. It subsequently dropped demands for written guarantees that its cooperation with Iran would not be hindered by sanctions imposed over Ukraine. But still, I think the geopolitical situation might make Moscow less willing to help finalize a nuclear deal. As in the past, Russia is also unlikely to support any US efforts to curb Iran's use of missiles and proxies in the region, because essentially, Iran's regional strategy pins down us resources while elevating Russia as a regional mediator, which serves Russian interests well. 15:17 Hanna Notte: Just a few words on Syria. Security Council resolution 2585 on the provision of humanitarian aid to northwest Syria is up for renewal in July. Now, Rationally speaking, the Kremlin should cooperate to avoid a worsening of serious food crisis, especially if an end game in Ukraine remains out of reach. But considering the current level of tensions between Russia and the West, I think the United States should be prepared for a Russian Security Council veto regardless, alongside continued Russian stalling on the Syrian constitutional committee. Moscow has no serious interest in seeing the committee advance. It will instead try to foster a Gulf Arab counterweight to Iran in Syria through normalization, especially for the contingency that Russia may need to scale back its own presence in Syria due to Ukraine. 16:14 Hanna Notte: First, unfortunately I think there's a widespread perception that the Ukraine war is not their war, that it's a Great Power NATO-Russia war, partially fueled by NATO and US actions visa vis Russia. 16:27 Hanna Notte: Second, there are accusations of Western double standards. The military support to Kyiv, the reception of Ukrainian refugees, these are rightly or wrongly viewed as proof that the West cares significantly more about conflict in Europe's neighborhood than those in the Middle East. 16:42 Hanna Notte: Third, regional elites worry about US conventional security guarantees. They fear that the threats posed by Russia and China will accelerate a decline in US power in the Middle East. And they also fear that the US will have limited bandwidth to confront Iran's missile and proxy activities. And with those fears, they feel they cannot afford to put all their eggs into the US basket. 17:07 Hanna Notte: And then finally, each regional state has very distinct business and security interests with Russia. As a result, and I'll end here, I think us opportunities to get regional states to turn against Russia are circumscribed. loosening these ties that states have been building with Russia will require a heavy lift. 18:57 Frederic Wehrey: This engagement is largely opportunistic and ad hoc. It seizes on instability and power vacuums and exploits the insecurities of US partners in the region about the reliability of US support, and their displeasure with the conditionality that the US sometimes attaches to its arms sales. Russian arms deliveries, in contrast, are faster and free from restrictions related to human rights. But Russia cannot provide the security guarantees that many Arab states have depended on from the United States. 19:29 Frederic Wehrey: Now, in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine, Russia is trying to reap dividends from its investment in the region, call in favors, and capitalize on local ambivalence and hostility to the United States, both from states and from Arab publics. America's Arab security partners have differed on joining the Western condemnation of Russian aggression, and some of refuse to join efforts to isolate Russia economically. 20:31 Frederic Wehrey: Russia's disastrous war in Ukraine is tarnishing its reputation as an arms supplier in the Middle East. Russian weapons have been shown to be flawed in combat and often fatally. So, Battlefield expenditures and attrition have whittled away Russia's inventory, especially precision munitions, and sanctions have eroded its defense industrial base, especially electronic components. As a result, Russia won't be able to fulfill its existing commitments, and potential buyers will be increasingly dissuaded from turning to Russia. This shortfall could be modestly exploited by China, which possesses large quantities of Russian made arms and spare parts, which you could use to keep existing inventories in the region up and running. It could also intensify its efforts to sell its own advanced weaponry like drones. 23:50 Caitlin Welsh: The war has reduced supplies and increased prices of foods exported from Ukraine and Russia, namely wheat, maize and sunflower oil, driven up demand for substitute products and reduced fertilizer exports from the Black Sea. Today's high cost of energy puts further pressure on food and fertilizer prices. Most vulnerable to the impact of these price spikes are countries for whom wheat is a major source of calories that rely on imports to meet their food security needs, and that source a significant proportion of their imports from Ukraine and Russia. 24:38 Caitlin Welsh: Egypt is the world's largest importer of wheat, sourcing over 70% of its wheat from the Black Sea. 25:42 Caitlin Welsh: The Russian Ukraine war is limiting access to wheat for Lebanon, already in one of the worst economic crises in the world. Lebanon has not recorded economic growth since 2017 and food price inflation inflation reached 400% in December 2021. Lebanon procures approximately 75% of its wheat from Russia and Ukraine. 28:48 Grant Rumley: Russia is one of the few countries in the world to maintain a relatively positive diplomatic standing with nearly every country in the Middle East. It does so through a combination of an active military presence, high level diplomatic engagement, and a concerted effort to position itself as a viable source of arms, should countries seek non-US material. 29:08 Grant Rumley: Russia's military presence in the region is well documented by Russian MOD statements. Russia has deployed over 60,000 troops to Syria since intervening in 2015. From its two bases in Syria, Hmeimim and Tartous, Russia is able to project power into the eastern Mediterranean, influence the course of the Syrian civil war, and intervene in countries like Libya. 29:47 Grant Rumley: Russia's invasion of Ukraine, however, threatens Russia standing in the region. Already reports indicate Russia has begun withdrawing some troops and mercenaries from the region to support its invasion of Ukraine. While we can expect these reports to continue if the war continues to go poorly for Russia, I'm skeptical of a full Russian withdrawal, and instead expect Russia to continue to consolidate its forces until it's left with a skeleton presence at Hmeimim and Tartous, its most strategic assets in the region. 30:26 Grant Rumley: On arms sales, the Russian defense industry, which has struggled to produce key platforms following sanctions initially placed after its 2014 invasion of Ukraine, will likely have to prioritize replenishing the Russian military over exporting. Further, customers of Russian arms may struggle with the resources to maintain and sustain the material in their inventory. Still, so long as Russia is able to make platforms, there will likely always be potential customers of Russian arms. 41:25 Grant Rumley: I definitely think customers of Russian arms are going to have several hurdles going forward, not only with simply maintaining and sustaining what they've already purchased, but in some of the basic logistics, even the payment process. Russian bank complained last month that it wasn't able to process close to a billion dollars in payments from India and Egypt over arms sales. I think countries that purchase Russian arms will also now have to consider the potential that they may incur secondary sanctions, in addition to running afoul of CAATSA [Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act-Related Sanctions]. I think from from our standpoint, there are many ways that we can amend our security cooperation approach. The Middle East, I think is a key theater for the future of great power competition, not only have we been competing with Russia in terms of arms sales there, but China increasingly has sold armed drones to the region. They've sold it to traditional partners, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE. And what they're doing is is oftentimes what we're not willing to do, our partners in the region seek co-production, they seek technology sharing. China and Russia are willing to work together to build these advanced platforms, Russia and the UAE inked an agreement several years ago to produce a fifth generation fighter. Nothing's come of that yet. China and Saudi Arabia, however, signed an agreement a couple of months ago to jointly produce armed drones in Saudi Arabia. And so I think the US may want to think creatively in terms of both what we sell, how we sell it, and what we're doing to make this more of a relationship and something beyond a strict transaction. 43:39 Grant Rumley: Their presence in Syria has evolved from a modest airstrip in 2015, to a base at Hmeimim that by open source reporting can serve as a logistics hub, a medical hub, it has the runways to host Russia's most advanced bombers. There was reports before Ukraine that Russia was deploying two 22 bombers there and hypersonic missiles. Their facility at Tartous, likewise. Their ability to stage naval assets there has expanded to they can now stage up to 11 ships there. So it has grown from from a rather modest beginning to something much more challenging from a US standpoint. In terms of what we can we can do, I think we can continue to support Ukraine and the defense of Ukraine, and the longer that Russia is bogged down in Ukraine, the harder it will be for Russia's military to extend and maintain its presence in the Middle East. 1:01:45 Grant Rumley: I think the US has several partners in the middle of major Russian arms purchases that we can, like Turkey and the S 400, that has requested the F 16, or Egypt and Sukhoi Su-35, that has requested the F 15. I'm not saying we have to make a deal right now for that, but I think it's clear that these countries are going to have gaps in their capabilities where they had planned on having Russian platforms to complement, and we can work with our partners and work with our own defense industry and see if there's ways in which we can provide off ramps for them to gradually disinvest these Russian platforms. 1:03:00 Frederic Wehrey: When countries in the in the region buy US arms, they believe they're buying much more than the capability, the hardware, that they're purchasing an insurance policy. I think especially for states in the Gulf, there's a fundamental sense of insecurity. These are states that face Iran, but they're also autocrats. They're insecure because of their political systems. They face dissent from within. We saw that with Egypt. So they're purchasing a whole stream of US assurances -- they believe they are. 1:06:00 Grant Rumley: The issue of of co-production is one means to address a common complaint, which is buying from America takes too long. That its too complicated, that if we get in line to buy something from the US, we're going to have to wait years to get it. A good example is the F 16. There are over 20 countries in the world that fly the F 16. We currently -- Lockheed Martin builds it out of one facility. That facility, if you get in line today, you're probably not getting the F 16 for five years from when you sign on the dotted line for it. In the 70s and 80s, we co-produced the F 16 with three other European countries and we were able to get them off the line faster. The initial order at those facilities was for 1000 F 16s. The initial order for the F 16 plant in South Carolina was for 90 F 16s for Taiwan and Morocco. And so from an industry standpoint, it's a question of scale. And so they're not able to ramp up the production because while the demand may get closer to 1000 over time, it's at 128. Last I checked, it's not there yet. And so I think we can use foreign military financing, longer security cooperation planning, working with our partners on multi-year acquisition timetables to then also communicate and send a signal to the defense industry that these are orders for upgrades, for new kits that are going to come down the road. You can start to plan around that and potentially address some of these production lags. 1:17:52 Grant Rumley: China has a lot of legacy Russian platforms, and will likely be a leading candidate to transfer some of these platforms to countries that had purchased Russian arms in the past and may be seeking maintenance and sustainment for them. I think China's already active in the Middle East, it's already flooding the market with armed drones. It's already looking to market other platforms as well. It's sold air defense systems to Serbia. It's looking to advance its arm sales. And so if if we aren't going to be the supplier, China is going to step in. 1:18:57 Caitlin Welsh: USDA has projected that 35% of the current wheat crop from Ukraine will not be harvested this year. So their exports are curtailed, at the same time Russia's exports are continuing. Russia has been exempted. Russia's agricultural exports and fertilizer has been exempted from sanctions for the United States, EU and other countries. So Russia continues to export. In fact, USDA is estimating that Russia's exports are increasing at this time. And I'm also seeing open source reporting of Russia stealing grain from Ukraine, relabeling it, and exporting it at a premium to countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Sen. Rand Paul: ‘We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the U.S. economy' May 12, 2022 NBC News Clips Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): My oath of office is to the US Constitution, not to any foreign nation. And no matter how sympathetic the cause, my oath of office is to the national security of the United States of America. We cannot save Ukraine by dooming the US economy. This bill under consideration would spend $40 billion. This is the second spending bill for Ukraine in two months. And this bill is three times larger than the first. Our military aid to Ukraine is nothing new, though. Since 2014, the United States has provided more than $6 billion dollars in security assistance to Ukraine, in addition to the $14 billion Congress authorized just a month ago. If this bill passes, the US will have authorized roughly $60 billion in total spending for Ukraine Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): The cost of this package we are voting on today is more than the US spent during the first year of the US conflict in Afghanistan. Congress authorized force, and the President sent troops into the conflict. The same cannot be said of Ukraine. This proposal towers over domestic priorities as well. The massive package of $60 billion to Ukraine dwarfs the $6 million spent on cancer research annually. $60 billion is more than the amount that government collects in gas taxes each year to build roads and bridges. The $60 billion to Ukraine could fund substantial portions or entire large Cabinet departments. The $60 billion nearly equals the entire State Department budget. The 60 billion exceeds the budget for the Department of Homeland Security and for the Department of Energy. And Congress just wants to keep on spending and spending. U.S. Efforts to Support Ukraine May 12, 2022 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Witnesses: Jessica Lewis, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Erin McKee, Assistant Administrator for Europe and Eurasia, U.S. Agency for International Development Karen Donfried, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State Beth Van Schaack, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice, U.S. Department of State Clips Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): Are we making it very clear to Russia that we do not want to pose an existential threat to them, that our only goal is to restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine? Karen Donfried: We are making it very clear to Russia that this is not a conflict between Russia and the United States. We are not going to engage directly in this war. President Biden has been explicit in saying we are not sending US troops to fight in this war. So I do believe we have made that clear. Our goal here is to end a war not to enlarge it. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH): As you all are waking up every morning, I know with the thought in mind that America's role here is to help Ukraine win and I want to talk a little about how we define victory. When Secretary Austin said after meeting with President Zelenskyy, that we can win this war against Russia -- this happened a few weeks ago -- I thought that was positive. On Monday, the foreign minister of Ukraine, who all of us have had a chance to visit with said, of course, the victory for us in this war will be a liberation of the rest of the territory. So Assistant Secretary Donfried, first, just a yes or no. Do you believe Ukraine can win this war? Karen Donfried: Yes. Sen. Rob Portman: And how would you define victory? Would you define victory as requiring the return of all Ukraine sovereign territory, including that that the Russians seized in 2014? Karen Donfried: Well, Senator Portman, thank you for that question. And thank you for your engagement on these issues. Your question very much relates to where Chairman Menendez began, which is, are we in a position of believing that it is Ukraine that should be defining what winning means? And I agreed with Chairman Menendez's statement on that, and that is where the administration is. We believe Ukraine should define what victory means. And our policy is trying to ensure Ukraine success, both by — Sen. Rob Portman: So the administration's official position on victory is getting Crimea back and getting the Donetsk and Luhansk region back as well. Karen Donfried: Again, I believe that is for the Ukrainians to define. Karen Donfried: Against this threat to regional security, global stability, and our shared values, we are supporting freedom, democracy, and the rules based order that make our own security and prosperity and that of the world possible. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): I believe we must also think about reconstruction efforts in Ukraine, the tools and ongoing governance and economic reforms, specifically in the judicial space, that will facilitate rebuilding critical Ukrainian sectors and attracting foreign investment. The Impact of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine in the Middle East and North Africa May 11, 2022 House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense held a budget hearing on the Department of Defense. Witnesses: Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary of Defense Michael J. McCord, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer General Mark A. Milley, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Clips 21:40 General Mark Milley: Alongside our allies and partners, at any given time approximately 400,000 of us are currently standing watch in 155 countries and conducting operations every day to keep Americans safe. 21:56 General Mark Milley: Currently we are supporting our European allies and guarding NATO's eastern flank, in the face of the unnecessary war of aggression by Russia, against the people of Ukraine, and the assault on the democratic institutions and the rules based international order that have prevented great power war for the last 78 years since the end of World War Two. We are now facing two global powers, China and Russia, each with significant military capabilities, both who intend to fundamentally change the current rules based order. Lindsey Graham declares, "let's take out Putin" and says there is "no off-ramp in this war" May 9, 2022 Clips Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC): If Putin still standing after all this then the world is going to be a very dark place China's going to get the wrong signal and we'll have a mess on our hands in Europe for decades to come so let's take out Putin by helping Ukraine Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Secretary ofDefense Lloyd J. Austin III Remarks to Traveling Press April 25, 2022 Jen's Highlighted PDF Remarks by President Biden on the United Efforts of the Free World to Support the People of Ukraine March 26, 2022 Jen's Highlighted PDF U.S. Policy and Russian Involvement in Syria November 4, 2015 House Foreign Affairs Committee Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

We're back for our third season! Kicking off the 2022 season, we explore the juvenile justice system in Pennsylvania.We spoke to Megan Kurlychek, Professor of Sociology, Criminology and Public Policy and Associate Director of the Criminal Justice Research Center at Penn State, and Rick Steele, Executive Director of the Juvenile Court Judges' Commission at the Pennsylvania Commonwealth, about their work in the juvenile justice field, the history of the juvenile justice system, prevention programs, the issue of recidivism, and more.Episode Resources and NotesMegan mentions that she began her career working at the National Center for Juvenile Justice, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Both Rick and Megan discuss the concept of parens patriae. According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law, parens patriae is Latin for "parent of the people." Under parens patriae, a state or court has a paternal and protective role over its citizens or others subject to its jurisdiction.Megan discusses the court case, In re Gault, as one of the landmark Supreme Court cases that changed how juvenile justice was approached back in the 1960s.Rick refers to the MAYSI-2, the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument – Second Version, when mentioning how behavioral health and substance use issues are assessed among justice-involved youth.Additionally, Rick discusses how the Pennsylvania Commonwealth has incorporated the University of Cincinnati's EPICS, Effective Practices in Community Supervision, into their probation model.Rick mentions using a standardized program evaluation protocol based on the work by Mark Lipsey, Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University.Megan mentions a prevention program that partners nurses with young mothers called the Nurse-Family Partnership.The School-to-Prison Pipeline is something that both Megan and Rick discuss as it relates to prevention research and programming.Megan talks about risk need assessments for assessing justice-involved youth. More information is available here.Rick discusses the Models for Change program, which helped to advance reforms to make juvenile justice systems more fair, effective, rational, and developmentally appropriate. He also mentions the Big Brothers, Big Sisters program, which is nationally renowned.JCJC's reports are available online for anyone interested in reading more about their work.Rick talks about working with other researchers in the field such as Gina Vincent, Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts, Keith Cruise from Fordham University, and Edward Mulvey, Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh's School of Medicine.Megan mentions her book, The Cycle of Juvenile Justice, which she co-wrote with Tom Bernard, Ph.D. back in 2010.The transcript for the episode is available here.

Two is the only even prime number, an odd fact to point out on this February 22, 2022. We are twenty days past the predictions of large rodents and less than a month away from the spring equinox. Time does move fast, but we’re still only 14.5 percent of the way through the year. Oh, the things you’ll learn in every installment of Charlottesville Community Engagement! I’m your host, Sean Tubbs. On today’s program:Albemarle County Supervisors discuss incentives for developers to build housing units below market rateMidway Manor may have a new future in which part of the downtown Charlottesville property will remain age and income restrictedA round-up of planning for other affordable housing projects in Charlottesville Albemarle County wants state regulators to require CenturyLink’s successor to maintain old copper telephone linesAnd Charlottesville wants the public to get a zoning 101Patreon-fueled shout-out to LEAPWhen you think of romance, you might not immediately think of energy efficiency - but the folks at LEAP think keeping your family comfortable at home is a great way to show you care during the month of love. Your local energy nonprofit wants to make sure you are getting the most out of your home all year round, and LEAP offers FREE home weatherization to income- and age-qualifying residents. If someone in your household is age 60 or older, or you have an annual household income of less than $74,950, you may qualify for a free energy assessment and home energy improvements such as insulation and air sealing. Sign up today to lower your energy bills, increase comfort, and reduce energy waste at home!Pandemic update: Percent positivity below ten percentThe waning of the omicron surge of COVID-19 continues as the Virginia Department of Health reports a seven-day average of positive PCR tests of 9.6 percent, below ten percent for the first time since December 21. Case loads are still high, with a seven-day average of 2,423 new cases a day. Today the Blue Ridge Health District reports another 168 new cases. Deaths associated with the omicron surge continue to be recorded. As of today there have been 401 total COVID deaths in the Blue Ridge Health District and 18,230 statewide over the past 23 months. Albemarle County offers comments on transfer of CenturyLink assets to LumenThis week, the State Corporation Commission is holding two meetings on a petition from Lumen Technologies to take over control of CenturyLink. Among the public comments submitted so far is the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors who sent a letter on February 10 summarizing concerns they made to Lumen officials at a January 12 meeting. As part of the deal, the new company would acquire copper-based assets and the county wants to make sure that service continues. (hearing webpage)“Many of our vulnerable communities live in the rural areas of our county, where topography and distance often preclude cellular coverage,” the letter reads. “For these residents, this copper-plant is a vital lifeline for accessing 911 service, particularly during and after severe weather events.” The letter also includes dozens of complaints about CenturyLink service for “terrible and ineffective customer service” and for a lack of maintenance of older equipment. (letter and complaints) (second set of complaints)For anyone interested in learning more, there is a whole repository of documents available for public review, including Lumen’s petition to the SCC. Midway Manor subject of new affordable housing developmentThe Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority will hold a public hearing next Monday on the issuance of up to $23 million in bonds that would be used by a California-based company to redevelop Midway Manor. In January, the property sold for $16.5 million, more than double its 2022 assessment of $7.5 million. According to a legal notice published in the Daily Progress, the new company has requested the CRHA issue up the exempt facility bonds “to assist the Applicant in financing or refinancing a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing, renovating, rehabilitating and equipping an age restricted affordable housing development to be known as Midway Manor Apartments, to consist of 94 one-bedroom units and 4 two-bedroom units.”The notice states in capital letters that taxpayer funds will not be sought to pay back any of the debt that Standard Midway Manor Venture LP will incur. To learn more about exempt facility bonds, visit the Legal Information Institute at the Cornell Law School. Since February 1, Midway Manor is now under management by the Franklin Johnston Group. Financing of the houses is provided by the U.S. Department of Housing through the Section 8 program, which bases rents on the income of tenants. In an email this morning, CRHA Executive Director John Sales said the agency’s only role will be to issue the bonds. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit applications underwayWe are in the season when providers of affordable housing are preparing applications for Low Income Housing Tax Credits in advance of a March deadline. Summaries have been sent to the agency formerly known as the Virginia Housing Development Authority and that’s required notifications to localities. (read all of the summaries)Piedmont Housing Alliance is seeking credits for 30 rental units at the Monticello Area Community Action Agency property on Park Street. These will be four one bedroom units, 22 two bedroom units, and four three bedroom units. The Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority seeks credits from the housing authority pool for 60 units for Phase 1A of the Sixth Street redevelopment with half of them being one bedroom and the other half being two bedroom units. This is separate from Phase 1 of the Sixth Street redevelopment, for which CRHA is seeking credits from the housing authority pool for 44 units with eight of them one bedroom, 20 two bedroom units, and 16 three bedroom units. CRHA is also seeking credits for 113 units in the second phase of redevelopment of South First Street. These would replace existing units and would consist of 19 one bedroom units, 38 two bedroom units, 26 three bedroom units, 15 four bedroom units, and 15 with more than four bedrooms. Last week, the company that is constructing the development of Friendship Court issued a press release announcing the groundbreaking from January. The firm Harkins is based in Columbia, Maryland. “Friendship Court’s redevelopment will be the largest construction of low-income housing for the area in over 20 years,” reads the release. “A multi-phased project, Phase 1 will consist of 106 units with buildings 1 and 2 totaling 35 stacked townhome-style units, while building 3 will include a one-level structured parking garage and three levels as a wood-framed, center corridor apartment building.” The project is being built to Passive House standards and will be Harkins’ third such project. Charlottesville releases Zoning 101 presentationThe next new information in Charlottesville’s rewrite of the zoning code won’t be available until mid-April when staff and Rhodeside & Harwell will publish a document with an inventory of the existing housing stock versus what could be built under the new future Land Use Map. This will take the form of a Diagnosis report and an Approach report. In the meantime, the city and the Cville Plans Together team has published a new page to provide an education on what the zoning process is all about. “Today’s zoning also has a number of flaws and barriers to development previously identified by City planning staff, elected and appointed officials, and others,” reads the Cville Plans Together website. “This process is an opportunity to cure these flaws and remove the barriers to the kind of development that is described in the updated Comprehensive Plan.” In January, a group of anonymous Charlottesville property owners filed suit in Charlottesville Circuit Court seeking to overturn the validity of the Comprehensive Plan. Read more in my January 12, 2022 story on that lawsuit. Shout-out to the Charlottesville Jazz Society In today’s second subscriber-supported public service announcement: The Charlottesville Jazz Society at cvillejazz.org is dedicated to the promotion, preservation, and perpetuation of all that  jazz, and this Sunday the Society is sponsoring the return of Jane Bunnett and her all-female band from Cuba, Maqueque. A concert will be held at 7 p.m. at Unity of Charlottesville where Maqueque will play music from their latest release On Firm Ground/Tierra Firme. Get tickets online with discounts for students or members of the Charlottesville Jazz Society.Albemarle Supervisors discuss incentive package for housing Last July, the Albemarle Board of Supervisors adopted a housing plan that seeks to increase the number of units guaranteed to be rented or sold below the market rate. Housing Albemarle was adopted without a system of incentives to developers to keep those prices lower than they otherwise would be. That came back to the Board on February 16. Albemarle Housing Coordinator Stacy Pethia has suggested creation of an overlay district in the zoning code that would allow for reduced fees and other waivers in exchange for creating lower-priced units. “We did engage with developers and we had four meetings with developers between June and October of last year,” Pethia said. “During the first two meetings, staff listened to developer concerns and discussed housing policy goals. Based on that feedback collected during those meetings and research into incentive programs implemented in localities within Virginia and across the country, staff developed a list of potential incentives that could be in a package.”The overlay would be restricted to Albemarle’s development areas and would be optional, meaning developers would not have to participate. If they did, there would be the possibility of many ways their bottom line could be assisted. “They would offer a bonus density, reduction in building permit fees, and flexibility in design and parking standards,” Pethia said. The overlay would also allow developers to bypass the zoning process in some places if they build to the maximum density allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. At a minimum, twenty percent of units would need to be kept below market rate at levels identified in Housing Albemarle. “And the number of affordable units to be required would be calculated prior to applying the density bonus,” Pethia said. “This would provide developers with additional market rate units to help offset the cost of making the affordable units available. The incentive plan will also address a gap in Albemarle’s current policy by creating a waiting list of people who will qualify for below-market opportunities based on their income. “It’s really difficult to market the affordable units to income-qualified households and that’s really an important issue,” Pethia said. “It has meant that many of our for-sale units in particular have turned market-rate without being purchased by income-qualified households.” In public comments before the discussion, Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum wanted waivers for affordable housing projects to be mandatory rather than at the discretion of staff. “The reality is that Albemarle’s fast diminishing development areas where the easiest parcels to develop have been developed,” Williamson said. “That means parcels left to develop will likely require a special use permit. While the policy anticipates this reality, the opportunity for staff denial is too great.” Williamson also said he wanted more robust incentives such as expansion of the development area as well as the county paying the hook-up fees to the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer. “Considering the importance of affordable housing to the community, certainly providing $20,000 per affordable unit is not too much to ask,” Williamson said. That would be expensive to the county. Pethia said the recent approval of Premier Circle, Rio Point, and RST Residences created 414 below-market units. If the developers were to be 100 percent reimbursed, that would cost the county $5.6 million. Supervisors were asked if they supported the idea of an overlay. Supervisor Bea LaPisto-Kirtley said she did, but not want to expand past a certain area.“I for one do not want to see development go into the rural areas and to keep development in the development area,” LaPisto-Kirtley said. Supervisor Chair Donna Price (Scottsville District) said there will come a point in time when that boundary will be adjusted, but not yet.“We’re already at the point where we have to fill in more, build up higher, or we have to expand the development areas so it’s important for community members to understand we have to look at ways to try and achieve all of our objectives which includes as long as possible limiting the amount of the development area,” Price said. Price was also skeptical of reducing parking standards at this time. “We do not have a comprehensive transportation system that can get everyone throughout the community wherever they need to do,” Price said. Supervisors approved the Rio Point on 27 acres in late December which will see a total of 328 units in an apartment complex on land that is currently undeveloped. That’s in the Rio District which is represented by Supervisor Ned Gallaway. He had looked at the draft calculation for bonus density. “So Rio Point, if I’m understanding the answer, would have allowed 1,300 units the way the math was done?” Gallaway asked Pethia.“That is correct,” Pethia said. That would be based on provisions in other programs that grant a 45 percent increase in density based on the gross density. The actual calculations will change as the incentive package is further tweaked.Gallaway suggested having the overlay apply only in certain parts of the county, such as those already identified in small area plans such as the Rio Road plan.  However, he added he is not opposed to any ideas at this point in the development of the incentives. Supervisor Jim Andrews (Samuel Miller District) said he wanted staff to take a deeper look into the results that have happened in other communities that have created developer incentives. “I would be really interested in hearing more about looking not only at what they’re doing but how successful they are at what they’re doing,” Andrews said. “Loudoun County’s proposals for example, their program I guess has been in place long enough to have a little bit of history. It looks to me like it’s having some success. Those are the ones we want to emulate if we can, if they work for our circumstances.”Supervisor Ann Mallek (White Hall) said she needed more information and for detail. “I am very concerned about an overlay that applies to every piece of direct because there is a great difference between the capability of one lot versus another to actually accomplish something and have a product where people would want to live,” Mallek said. Staff will return to the board with more information at a later date but Supervisor Gallaway pointed out that the package’s adoption will take until after the one year anniversary of the adopting of Housing Albemarle. General Assembly updateWith just over three weeks to go, action is moving fast in the General Assembly, with bills that passed in one house with a close partisan vote now meeting their fate in committee meetings. These include:The Senate Commerce and Labor Committee  killed a bill yesterday to cap the minimum wage at $11 an hour. The vote was 11 to 4. (HB296)That committee also defeated a bill to not move forward with subsequent increases mandated by a previous General Assembly. That vote was 12 to 3. (HB320)A bill to allow employers to pay less than the minimum wage if they have fewer than ten employees was also defeated 12 to 3. (HB1040)Bills to restrict collective bargaining by public employees were also defeated. (HB336) (HB337) (HB341) (HB883)The Senate Committee on Education and Health ended consideration of a bill that would made it easier for School Boards to dismiss new teachers by extending probationary periods. (HB9)The Senate Judiciary Committee defeated a bill that would have reduced penalties for violating the state’s concealed weapon laws on a 10 to 5 vote. (HB11)On a 8 to 7 vote, the Senate Rehabilitation and Social Services Committee ended consideration of a bill that would have required the parole board to review the transcript of the trial for each incarcerated person up for parole. (HB435)Support the program!Special announcement of a continuing promo with Ting! Are you interested in fast internet? Visit this site and enter your address to see if you can get service through Ting. If you decide to proceed to make the switch, you’ll get:Free installationSecond month of Ting service for freeA $75 gift card to the Downtown MallAdditionally, Ting will match your Substack subscription to support Town Crier Productions, the company that produces this newsletter and other community offerings. So, your $5 a month subscription yields $5 for TCP. Your $50 a year subscription yields $50 for TCP! The same goes for a $200 a year subscription! All goes to cover the costs of getting this newsletter out as often as possible. Learn more here! This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

Law Licenses Suspended for McCloskeys, the Missouri Couple Who Held Off Protesters Outside Their Homehttps://gorightnews.com/law-licenses-suspended-for-mccloskeys-the-missouri-couple-who-held-off-protesters-outside-their-home/https://www.spreaker.com/user/9922149/law-licenses-suspended-for-mccloskeys-thhttps://rumble.com/vuw306-law-licenses-suspended-for-mccloskeys.htmlhttps://rumble.com/embed/vs9wxoThe Missouri Supreme Court has indefinitely suspended the law licenses of a Missouri couple convicted of misdemeanors for holding guns outside of their St. Louis home in 2020, when a group of protesters, including Black Lives Matter activists, demonstrated in their gated community.At the same time, the court stayed the suspension, subject to a year of probation during which the two attorneys—who have become folk heroes among conservatives—must “not engage in conduct that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct.”For defending their home, Mark and Patricia McCloskey were honored speakers at the 2020 Republican National Convention. Mark McCloskey is currently running for the U.S. Senate as a Republican.Although the McCloskeys, who were pardoned after their convictions by Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, a Republican, argued that they were justified in holding firearms outside of their home to dissuade the crowd, which they said meant them harm, local prosecutors disagreed.The case, which involved prosecutorial misconduct, received national media attention.Kimberly Gardner, a Democrat and St. Louis's first black chief prosecutor, who has accused local police of racism, was removed from the case in December 2020 by Circuit Judge Thomas Clark II for using the incident in inflammatory campaign fundraising emails that were sent out days before the McCloskeys were charged. Clark ruled that Gardner's behavior raised “the appearance of impropriety” and jeopardized the defendants' right to a fair trial, National Public Radio reported.Leftist financier George Soros, whose philanthropy funded groups that were involved in the violent protests following the 2014 death of black teenager Michael Brown in nearby Ferguson, Missouri, also contributed to Gardner's campaign through his political organizations as part of a “rogue prosecutors” campaign to elect soft-on-crime district attorneys, Capital Research Center found, according to the Washington Times. Critics say that these radical prosecutors have caused crime rates to escalate in communities across the country.The Black Lives Matter activists who appeared outside of the McCloskeys' home were marching to the home of the St. Louis mayor to protest the death in Minneapolis police custody of George Floyd, a black man whose death sparked violent protests nationwide. Nine protesters involved in the incident were charged with misdemeanor trespassing, but the charges were later dropped.The McCloskeys said at the time that their actions “were borne solely of fear and apprehension” at the presence of the mob on a private street.Under court rules, the fact that Mark and Patricia McCloskey were each convicted of a “misdemeanor offense involving moral turpitude” requires them to be disciplined, Chief Justice Paul C. Wilson wrote in twin orders on Feb. 8.Moral turpitude is a legal term describing “wicked, deviant behavior constituting an immoral, unethical, or unjust departure from ordinary social standards such that it would shock a community,” according to the Legal Information Institute.Mark McCloskey entered a guilty plea on June 17, 2021, to a “class A misdemeanor of harassment in the second degree,” Wilson wrote. He was fined $750. Patricia McCloskey entered a guilty plea on the same day to a “class C misdemeanor of assault in the fourth degree,” the chief justice wrote. She was fined $2,000.The couple had originally been charged with felony-level unlawful use of a weapon, although prosecutors reached a plea deal with them to reduce the severity of the charges.Alan Pratzel, the court's chief disciplinary officer, previously moved to have their law licenses suspended. He said what the couple did showed “indifference to public safety” and involved “moral turpitude.”Pratzel acknowledged that the governor's pardons erased the McCloskeys' convictions, but said in such cases “the person's guilt remains,” as The Epoch Times previously reported.Patricia McCloskey told local media that she was “disappointed the Supreme Court found it appropriate to discipline us.”“I think what we did was certainly not an act of moral turpitude,” she said.She noted that they'll both comply with the probation conditions.[Source: Waking Up Right Newsletter, The Epochtimeshttps://www.theepochtimes.com/law-licenses-suspended-for-mccloskeys-the-missouri-couple-who-held-off-protesters-outside-their-home_4266507.html]

For today's episode you need to have read CHAPTER FIVE of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. We chat about goblin folklore, Sirius and Harry's summers, Voldemort's plans, and whether or not there's a "first amendment" within the wizarding world. This is the blog with the art history timeline and photos: artistchristinacarmel.com/blog/a-very-brief-history-of-portrait-painting Follow us: @firstyearspod (Insta and Twitter) Email us: firstyearspodcast @ gmail . com I also just wanted to expand on my first amendment point that obviously there are exceptions to the rule. Hate speech, incitements of violence, things like that can be prohibited – none of which Dumbledore is doing. Some speech is also restricted based on national security, despite what the first amendment says. One of the sources I looked at states, “generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.” (Cornell Law School source) We know the Dumbledore is being truthful. So there's really no reason for Dumbledore to be thrown in Azkaban. However, even though the above talks about truthful or honest opinions, given the amount of misinformation that has been able to slide in recent years here, I still doubt that Dumbledore would get thrown into jail even if Voldemort being back was BS. SOURCES: Berner, Adam Ethan. “Making a Family: The History and Theory behind Family Photos.” Musée Magazine, Musée Magazine, 26 Oct. 2020, museemagazine.com/features/2018/11/20/making-a-family-the-history-and-theory-behind-family-photos. Carmel, Christina. “A Very Brief History of Portrait Painting.” Artist Christina Carmel, artistchristinacarmel.com/blog/a-very-brief-history-of-portrait-painting. Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. “Goblin.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/art/goblin. “First Amendment.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment. Geller, Prof. “Goblin - Monstrous Creature from European Folklore.” Mythology.net, 21 Oct. 2016, mythology.net/mythical-creatures/goblin/. “Goblin.” Goblin - New World Encyclopedia, www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Goblin. “Portrait – Art Term.” Tate, www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/p/portrait. Shapiro, Stephen J. (1989) Comparing Free Speech: United States v. United Kingdom. University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 19: No. 2, Article 5., https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol19/iss2/5 The Week Staff. “Hate Speech vs. Free Speech: The UK Laws.” The Week UK, The Week, 12 Feb. 2020, www.theweek.co.uk/97552/hate-speech-vs-free-speech-the-uk-laws.

Learn more about the U.S. Energy Information Administration in this episode of alphabet soup.Sources:A&E Television Networks. (2010, August 30). Energy Crisis (1970s). History.com. Retrieved January 6, 2022, from https://www.history.com/topics/1970s/energy-crisis  Grunwald, M. (2015, June 24). Why are the government's energy forecasts so bad? The Agenda. Retrieved January 6, 2022, from https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/why-are-the-federal-governments-energy-forecasts-so-bad-000111/  Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). 15 U.S. Code § 761 - Congressional Declaration of Purpose. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved January 6, 2022, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/761  Office of Management and Budget. (n.d.). Chief statistician/statistical and science and policy branch. USAJOBS. Retrieved January 6, 2022, from https://www.usajobs.gov/job/616715700  Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries. (n.d.). OAPEC. Retrieved January 6, 2022, from https://www.oapecorg.org/Home/FAQs  U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (n.d.). U.S. Energy Information Administration. About EIA - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Retrieved January 6, 2022, from https://www.eia.gov/about/  The United States Government. (2021, December 22). Statistical Programs & Standards. The White House. Retrieved January 6, 2022, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-regulatory-affairs/statistical-programs-standards/  

Bonnie Maclean's story has rather humble beginnings. She was largely a self taught artist and graphic designer. Originally from Philadelphia, she relocated to San Francisco in 1963, during a pivotal time in US history. Maclean started her career as an assistant to Bill Graham before he began working as a concert promoter for the Filmore. She would eventually take over as the in-house poster designer from Wes Wilson, who is often cited as a strong influence on MacLean's work. Her previous design experience included chalkboard announcements and evening lineups for the concert hall. Today her work for the  Filmore is considered an important contribution to the psychedelic music scene of the 1960s. However, despite her contributions, the history of graphic design largely recognizes the “Big Five'' as the most important or iconic figures contributing to the music poster scene of this era. It shouldn't be surprising that the “Big Five'' doesn't include Maclean. However, her psychedelic posters for the Filmore have been collected and exhibited by museums and galleries and recognized for their impact on the music poster scene of 1960s San Francisco.TIMELINE1939 – b Philadelphia1961 – graduated from Penn State university with a degree in French1961 – Moved to New York city, took drawing classes at night at Pratt Institute where she was working1963 – Moved to San Francisco and began work with Bill Graham1967 – Married concert promoter Bill Graham1967 – Wes Wilson left the Filmore and Bonnie became the primary poster designer in his stead.1968 – gave birth to son David1975 – Divorced Bill Graham1981 – married second husband Jacques Fabert (artist)2005 – work was featured at the Tate Liverpool in a show called “The Summer of Love: Art of the Psychedelic era”2013 – Jacques Fabert dies2014 –  headliner at the TRPS Festival of Rock Posters in San Francisco2015 – designs commemorative poster for Hall & Oates to mark the grand opening of the Philadelphia Fillmore 2020 – died in PennsylvaniaREFERENCESAnkeny, J. (ND). “Bonne Maclean”. All Music. https://www.allmusic.com/artist/bonnie-maclean-mn0001841640/biography“Bonnie Maclean” (ND). Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.  https://art.famsf.org/bonnie-macleanDoyle, M. (2002). “Staging the Revolution: Guerrilla Theater as a Countercultural Practice, 1965-1968”. The Digger Archives. https://www.diggers.org/guerrilla_theater.htmEsmaili, T. (June 2017). “Obscenity”. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obscenityGrushkin, P. (2015). The Art of Rock: Posters from Presley to Punk. Abbeville Press. Kamiya, G. (August 7, 2015). “How A Mime Troupe Arrest Sparked Bill Graham's Promoting Career”. The San Francisco Chronicle. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/How-a-Mime-Troupe-arrest-sparked-Bill-Graham-s-6431937.phpMarks, B. (February 12, 2020). “Bonnie MacLean, 1939-2020”. TRPS (The Rock Poster Society).https://trps.org/2020/02/12/bonnie-maclean-1939-2020/Morley, M. (March 7, 2019) “The Cost of Free Love and the Designers Who Bore It—Meet the Women of Psychedelic Design”. AIGA Eye on Design. https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/women-of-psychedelic-design/Vaziri, A.  (February 12, 2020). “Bonnie Maclean, pioneering rock poster artist and wife of Bill Graham, dies at 80“. Datebook, San Francisco Chronicle. https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/art-exhibits/bonnie-maclean-pioneering-rock-poster-artist-and-wife-of-bill-graham-dies-at-80

In Episode 10, Bolton and Grace recap the 2017 film, Molly's Game, and discuss the facts of the true crime story that the movie is based on. The movie was written and directed by Aaron Sorkin and is based on the 2014 memoir of the same name written by Molly Bloom. The film stars Jessica Chastain as Molly Bloom, a former world-class skier and aspiring law student, who found herself running a star studded high stakes poker game. Kevin Costner plays Molly's demanding father, Michael Cera plays the infamously repugnant ‘Player X', and Idris Elba plays Molly's lawyer who she hires after she is named in a Federal mob indictment. The film focuses on the life of Molly Bloom, how she came to run such a high-stakes poker game, why she ends up in Federal Court and perhaps why she received the sentence she did. The film is a nice break (for the most part) from violent crime stories and immerses viewers into the world of high-stakes private poker.Also, be sure to check out Crime of the Truest Kind wherever you get your podcasts!Sources:Molly's Game (2017)Bloom, Molly. Molly's Game: the True Story of the 26-Year-Old Woman behind the Most Exclusive, High-Stakes Underground Poker Game in the World. Dey Street, an Imprint of William Morrow Publishers, 2017. “Molly's Game.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 June 2021. “18 U.S. Code § 1955 - Prohibition of Illegal Gambling Businesses.” Legal Information Institute. Cohen, Nicole. “Molly Bloom And Aaron Sorkin On The Real Story Behind 'Molly's Game'.” NPR, 6 Jan. 2018. “Jim Walden (Lawyer).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 Apr. 2021.Kaufman, Amy. “How Molly Bloom Went from 'Poker Princess' to the 'Movie Heroine' of 'Molly's Game'.” Los Angeles Times, 2 Jan. 2018.Kaye, Don. “Idris Elba on the Reality Behind His Molly's Game Character.” Den of Geek, 28 Dec. 2017.Lang, Kevin. “Molly's Game vs. The True Story of Molly Bloom.” History vs. Hollywood, 7 Apr. 2020. “Larry Bloom.” Semester at Sea, 21 July 2020. “N.Y. Penal Law § 225.10.” Casetext, accessed on 24 Apr. 2021. Pempus, Brian. “'Poker Princess' Pleads Guilty In Gambling Case.” CardPlayer, 27 Dec. 2013. Surrey, Miles. “The Real Celebrity Stories Behind 'Molly's Game'.” The Ringer, 27 Dec. 2017. REMAINING SOURCES AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE

This week we're traveling to 1980s Wales with Pride! Join us for a discussion of Gay's the Word, Mary Whitehouse, age of consent, Bread and Roses, and more! Sources: Background: Pride, IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3169706/ Odie Henderson Review, Rogerebert.com: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/pride-2014 Mark Kermode's Review, The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/sep/14/pride-film-review-mark-kermode-power-in-unlikely-union Mary Whitehouse: Mary Whitehouse Obituary, The Guardian, available at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/nov/24/guardianobituaries.obituaries The Gay Poem that Broke Blasphemy Laws, available at https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2008/01/10/the-gay-poem-that-broke-blasphemy-laws/ Letters from Mary Whitehouse, The National Archives, available at https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/sixties-britain/letters-mary-whitehouse/ Gavin Shaffer, "Til Death Do Us Part and the BBC: Racial Politics and the British Working Class, 1965-1975," Journal of Contemporary History 45, 2 (2010) The Lesbian Tide (March-April 1978) Barbara Norden, "The Campaign Against Pornography," Feminist Review 35 (1990) Gay's the Word: Diarmaid Kelliher, "Solidarity and Sexuality: Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners 1984-5," History Workshop Journal 77 (Spring 2014): 240-62. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43299555 All Out! Dancing in Dulais https://youtu.be/lHJhbwEcgrA Kate Kellaway, "When miners and gay activists united: the real story of the film Pride," The Guardian (31 August 2014). https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/aug/31/pride-film-gay-activists-miners-strike-interview IMDB page for Pride: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3169706/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 Maroula Joannou, "'Fill a bag and feed a family': the miners' strike and its supporters," in Labour and the left in the 1980s eds. Jonathan Davis and Rohan McWilliam (Manchester University Press). https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvnb7nds.14 June Thomas, "gagging "gay's the word"" Off Our Backs 15:4 (April 1985): 3 and "gay's the word update" Off Our Backs 15:9 (October 1985): 8 Gillian Rodgerson and Linda Semple, "Who Watches the Watchwomen?: Feminists against Censorship" Feminist Review 36 (August 1990): 19-24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1395106 Simon Watney, "AIDS, pornography and law" Policing Desire: Pornography, AIDS, and the Media (University of Minnesota Press, 1996) https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctttv4sn.10 Alwyn Collinson, "Hidden Pride: London's LGBT history" Museum of London (2 February 2019) https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/london-pride-london-lgbt-history-gay-rights Age of Consent: Paul Bloomfield, "Labour's liberalism: gay rights and video nasties," in Labour and the left in the 1980s eds. Jonathan Davis and Rohan McWilliam (Manchester University Press, 2018). https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvnb7nds.9 Matthew Waites, "Equality at Last? Homosexuality, Heterosexuality and the Age of Consent in the United Kingdom" Sociology 37:4 (November 2003): 637-55. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42856567 David Rayside, "Promoting Heterosexuality in the Thatcher Years," in On the Fringe: Gays and Lesbians in Politics (Cornell University Press). https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctv5qdh32.7 Michel Bozon and Juliette Rennes, "The history of sexual norms: the hold of age and gender," trans. by Sian Reynolds Clio: Women, Gender, History 42 Age and Sex (2015): 7-23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26273655 "Marriage laws" Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage#k Vicky Iglikowski-Broad, "The passing of the 1967 Sexual Offences Act," National Archives Blog (24 July 2017). https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/sexual-offences-act/ Florence Sutcliffe-Braithwaite, "The 1967 Sexual Offences Act: a landmark moment in the history of British homosexuality," History Extra; BBC History Magazine (14 July 2018). https://www.historyextra.com/period/modern/the-1967-sexual-offences-act-a-landmark-moment-in-the-history-of-british-homosexuality/ "Convictions and Cautions for Gross Indecency" Stonewall https://www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/criminal-law/convictions-and-cautions-gross-indecency Peter Tatchell, "Don't fall for the myth that it's 50 years since we decriminalised homosexuality," The Guardian (23 May 2017) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/23/fifty-years-gay-liberation-uk-barely-four-1967-act "Sexual Offences Act 1967" Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967 Nicholas Syrett, "Child marriage is still legal in the US" The Conversation (11 December 2017). https://theconversation.com/child-marriage-is-still-legal-in-the-us-88846 Anjali Tsui, "Married Young: The Fight Over Child Marriage in America," Frontline (14 September 2017). https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/married-young-the-fight-over-child-marriage-in-america/ "Page 3" Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_3 "Wolfenden Report, 1957" British Library, https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/wolfenden-report-conclusion Bread and Roses: "Bread and Roses," The Zinn Education Project, available at https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/bread-and-roses-song/ Tea Hvala, "Streetwise Politics: Feminist and Lesbian Grassroots Activism in Ljubljana," in Feminist Media: Participatory Spaces, Networks, and Cultural Citizenship, ed Elke Zobl and Ricarde Drueke, Transcript Publishing: 2012 Desmond King and David Rueda, "Cheap Labor: The New Politics of 'Bread and Roses' in Industrial Democracies," Perspectives on Politics 6, 2 (2008) Wini Breines, "What's Love Got to Do With It? White Women, Black Women, and Feminism in the Movement Years," Signs 27, 4 (2002) Joan Baez and Mimi Farina, "Bread and Roses," Availabe at https://youtu.be/LWkVcaAGCi0 "Pan y Rosas: Argentine Women in the Struggle," Left Voice, available at https://www.leftvoice.org/pan-y-rosas-argentine-women-in-the-struggle        

How do we count electoral college votes in a contested Presidential election? Professor Richard Hasen from the University of California, Irvine School of Law gives us a civics lesson. Sources: Wikipedia article ‘Electoral Count Act’ Wikipedia article ‘United States Electoral College’ 3 US Code §15 ‘Counting Electoral Votes in Congress’ U.S. Constitution Article 2 from Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute

How do we count electoral college votes in a contested Presidential election? Professor Richard Hasen from the University of California, Irvine School of Law gives us a civics lesson. Sources: Wikipedia article ‘Electoral Count Act’ Wikipedia article ‘United States Electoral College’ 3 US Code §15 ‘Counting Electoral Votes in Congress’ U.S. Constitution Article 2 from Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute

In this episode, hosts Gabi (@gabi.vasquez) and Jessica (@realkoko_) are BOTHERED by the death penalty and the injustices that result from systemic racism and traditional politics. The death penalty is STILL a thing, and we're ready to serve facts and opinions on this controversial and prevalent topic that continues to permeate the legal system. In honor of Brandon Bernard and Alfred Bourgeois, BOTHERED PODCAST will be donating 100% of our sponsorship profits to the Innocence Project (www.innocenceproject.org). To get involved in Texas, visit the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty website (tcadp.org). To learn more about our sources, please visit the following: “Abolish Capitalism's Racist Death Penalty!” Moratorium Debate in Illinois: Abolish Capitalism's Racist Death Penalty!, www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistvoice/DPPR59.html. Carrega, Christina. “Two Black Men Have Been Executed within Two Days. Two More Are Set to Die before Biden's Inauguration.” CNN, Cable News Network, 12 Dec. 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/12/12/us/brandon-bernard-alfred-bourgeois-executions/index.html. Costello, Carol. “Can You Be pro-Life and pro-Death Penalty?” CNN, Cable News Network, 28 May 2014, www.cnn.com/2014/05/14/opinion/costello-pro-life-pro-death-penalty/index.html. “Death Penalty.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/death_penalty. “Race.” Death Penalty Information Center, 15 Sept. 2020, deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/race. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/botheredpodcast/support

Podcast: Radiolab (LS 87 · TOP 0.01% what is this?)Episode: Enemy of MankindPub date: 2020-12-10Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country's ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach? Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate.    The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from WNYC Studios, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country’s ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach? Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate.    

Think you’re free to speak your mind at work? Before you give an oratory on sensible governance, tune in here. Grant Osborne from Ward and Smith explains free speech in the workplace and the 1st Amendment. {Spoiler}... Your level of free speech can depend on who you work for. Sources: The National Law Review article by Justin Hill and Grant Osborne ‘Political Speech in the Workplace (and What - If Anything - To Do About It)’ The First Amendment provided by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School

Think you’re free to speak your mind at work? Before you give an oratory on sensible governance, tune in here. Grant Osborne from Ward and Smith explains free speech in the workplace and the 1st Amendment. {Spoiler}... Your level of free speech can depend on who you work for. Sources: The National Law Review article by Justin Hill and Grant Osborne ‘Political Speech in the Workplace (and What - If Anything - To Do About It)’ The First Amendment provided by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School

The CHAZ/CHOP returns but this time it’s not the protests. Walter Olson from the CATO Institute gives us an update about the lawsuit filed by Seattle businesses against their city. Sources: Legal Talk Today episode ‘Suing Seattle over CHAZ/CHOP’ CATO article by Walter Olson ‘Judge: Seattle’s Aid to Protest Zone Might Have Been a Taking’ The Volokh Conspiracy blog post by Ilya Somin ‘Rethinking the Seattle “CHOP” Takings Case’ The Volokh Conspiracy blog post by Eugene Volokh ‘Property Owners’ Lawsuit Against Seattle Over Its Toleration of the “CHOP” Takeover Can Go Forward’ The 5th Amendment on the Legal Information Institute provided by Cornell Law School

The CHAZ/CHOP returns but this time it’s not the protests. Walter Olson from the CATO Institute gives us an update about the lawsuit filed by Seattle businesses against their city. Sources: Legal Talk Today episode ‘Suing Seattle over CHAZ/CHOP’ CATO article by Walter Olson ‘Judge: Seattle’s Aid to Protest Zone Might Have Been a Taking’ The Volokh Conspiracy blog post by Ilya Somin ‘Rethinking the Seattle “CHOP” Takings Case’ The Volokh Conspiracy blog post by Eugene Volokh ‘Property Owners’ Lawsuit Against Seattle Over Its Toleration of the “CHOP” Takeover Can Go Forward’ The 5th Amendment on the Legal Information Institute provided by Cornell Law School

  Do you know your rights and where they come from? In this episode, Human Coalition President Brian Fisher breaks down the idea of universal and unalienable rights and how they are related to human dignity. Helpful resources: National Archives (Declaration of Independence): National Archives (U.S. Constitution): National Archives (Bill of Rights): Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2020 Edition, “Rights” by Leif Wenar: United Nations (Universal Declaration of Human Rights): World Health Organization (human rights and health factsheet): Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (right to privacy history; Griswold v. Connecticut decision): Christianity Today (excerpt from Michael McAfee and Lauren Green McAfee’s book, “Not What You Think”): Questions or comments about the show? We love hearing from you! The post appeared first on .

Jay Schweikert, policy analyst from the CATO Institute discusses qualified immunity for the police and whether the Supreme Court will change it. Source: SCOTUS Blog CATO article by Clark Neily “George Floyd’s Death Must Be a Catalyst for Accountability” Notes... commentary and noting how 10 cases are up for review at SCOTUS and how qualified immunity is a case law. CATO article by Jay Schweikert “Supreme Court Will Soon Decide Whether To Reconsider Qualified Immunity” Notes... commentary on how qualified immunity is case law, about SCOTUS review, and the 13 cases now being considered before the Supreme Court. All but Kelsay v. Ernst and Jessop v City of Fresno (theft) are still being distributed for conference. I didn’t see Cooper v. Flaig, Clarkston v. White, and Davis v. Ermold at SCOTUS Blog Unlawful Shield website from CATO California Law Review (UC-Berkeley) by Professor William Baude “Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?” Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute... 42 U.S. Code §1983. Civil Action for deprivation of rights

Jay Schweikert, policy analyst from the CATO Institute discusses qualified immunity for the police and whether the Supreme Court will change it. Source: SCOTUS Blog CATO article by Clark Neily “George Floyd’s Death Must Be a Catalyst for Accountability” Notes... commentary and noting how 10 cases are up for review at SCOTUS and how qualified immunity is a case law. CATO article by Jay Schweikert “Supreme Court Will Soon Decide Whether To Reconsider Qualified Immunity” Notes... commentary on how qualified immunity is case law, about SCOTUS review, and the 13 cases now being considered before the Supreme Court. All but Kelsay v. Ernst and Jessop v City of Fresno (theft) are still being distributed for conference. I didn’t see Cooper v. Flaig, Clarkston v. White, and Davis v. Ermold at SCOTUS Blog Unlawful Shield website from CATO California Law Review (UC-Berkeley) by Professor William Baude “Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?” Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute... 42 U.S. Code §1983. Civil Action for deprivation of rights

  Court is in session! In part two of a series on the influence of the courts on issues of life and human dignity, Human Coalition President Brian Fisher examines the influence of the highest court in the land – the Supreme Court of the United States. Helpful resources: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (number of cases heard by the Supreme Court): Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court process and procedures): The American Bar Association (the different court opinions): Axios (ideological divide of the Court): USA Today (Ilya Shapiro Opinion Column): History.com (Roe v. Wade history): Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (right to privacy history; Griswold v. Connecticut decision): Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (Roe v. Wade decision): CBS News (Louisiana abortion law; Rep. Jackson quote): Guttmacher Institute (admitting privileges): Mic (Texas abortion law): CBS News (Louisiana abortion law; Guttmacher Institute study): Guttmacher Institute (study on Louisiana abortion law): NPR (Louisiana abortion law; admitting privileges): Associated Press (April criminal juries court case): USA Today (April criminal juries court case and what it means for the Louisiana abortion law): Ramos v. Louisiana Supreme Court Decision (Kavanaugh concurring opinion): Questions or comments about the show? We love hearing from you! The post appeared first on .

Before the world turned upside down, one of the issues we were following was the Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org case where the State of Georgia brought a lawsuit claiming copyright protection on the annotations for its Official Code of Georgia. Our three podcast series (unintentional) started out with Tom Gaylord discussing the initial filing with the Court, Ed Walters and Kyle Courtney breaking down the oral arguments, and finally, we have today's final episode with Ed Walters returning and bringing Cornell Law School's Kim Nayyer, and the Legal Information Institute's Craig Newton along to discuss the Court's final ruling. The Court ruled in Public.Resource.Org's favor, but our guests aren't sure how far the opinion actually goes to cover state material beyond the Georgia Code. Could it mean the end of deals between states and vendors like LexisNexis or Thomson Reuters? Does this mean that other materials, such as Regulatory Codes are fair game? We discuss… you decide. We spend the entire episode on this topic. Don't worry, we'll bring our Information Inspirations back next week. Listen, Subscribe, Comment Please take the time to rate and review us on Apple Podcast. Contact us anytime by tweeting us at @gebauerm or @glambert. Or, you can call The Geek in Review hotline at 713-487-7270 and leave us a message. You can email us at geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.com. As always, the great music you hear on the podcast is from Jerry David DeCicca.

When Colin Moriarty (IGN, Kinda Funny) and his latest PlayStation series, Sacred Symbols, were accepted to tape a live version at PAX West (Penny Arcade, ReedPOP), he was quick to tell his fans about the opportunity and invite them to join him at the conference. But when PAX rescinded the invitation weeks later and on the eve of final scheduling, many including Colin were left wondering "What happened?" and "What do we do now?". Was a contract formed between PAX and Colin Moriarty? If not, why not? What was missing? How does the law evaluate promises made and broken, and how can equitable principles like promissory estoppel and detrimental reliance inform our understanding? What does the State of Washington (where PAX West is located) have to say? And why is any claim made by the fans going to be much more difficult to make than those of Colin and the show itself? It's time for another lively discussion. You'll never be estopped...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/rkEHw5B6KWU #Moriarty #PAX #VirtualLegality *** Discussed in this episode: "PAX West rescinded Sacred Symbols’ panel today..." Tweet from Colin Moriarty (@notaxation) - Jul 30, 2019 (https://twitter.com/notaxation/status/1156291821967798274) "So, @PAX and @Reed_POP still haven't answered." Tweet from Colin Moriarty (@notaxation) - Jul 31, 2019 (https://twitter.com/notaxation/status/1156655290210648064) "Elements Of A Contract" USLegal Website (https://contracts.uslegal.com/elements-of-a-contract/) "Promissory estoppel" Legal Information Institute (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel) "BEYOND RELIANCE: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, CONTRACT FORMALITIES, AND MISREPRESENTATIONS" 15 Hofstra Law Review 443 (1987) (https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=11423&context=journal_articles) "WPI301A.01Promissory Estoppel" Washington Pattern Jury Instructions (https://govt.westlaw.com/wciji/Document/I2cd238e4e10d11dab058a118868d70a9) "LIABILITY & LEGAL INFORMATION" PAX Website (https://www.paxsite.com/legal?_ga) *** FOR MORE CHECK US OUT: On Twitter @hoeglaw At our website: https://hoeglaw.com/ On our Blog, "Rules of the Game", at https://hoeglaw.wordpress.com/ On "Help Us Out Hoeg!" a regular segment on the Easy Allies Podcast (formerly GameTrailers) (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZrxXp1reP8E353rZsB3jaA)

In this episode, we spend time with Paul D. Clement, who served as the 43rd Solicitor General of the United States from June 2005 until June 2008. Before his confirmation as Solicitor General, he served as Acting Solicitor General for nearly a year and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General for over three years. He has argued nearly 100 cases before the United States Supreme Court. The American Law Institute would like to thank Oyez for excerpted portions of Supreme Court oral arguments. This material is released under the Creative Commons license. Oyez is a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law. Listeners may learn more about Oyez or listen to full oral arguments online at oyez.org.

Disruption is a word that gets thrown around easily these days. But the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School truly was a disruptor. Founded in 1992 with the mission of making legal information available to everyone without cost, it was literally the first legal site on the Internet. It continues strong today, with readership last year of 32 million individuals in 246 countries and territories. On this episode of LawNext, we talk with Thomas R. Bruce, who is retiring June 30 after 27 years leading the LII. In 1992, Bruce and former Cornell Law Dean Peter W. Martin founded the LII. They codirected it until Martin retired in 2003, after which Bruce continued as sole director. The LII blazed the trail of publishing law online for free, inspiring the creation of some two dozen similar organizations throughout the world, and carrying the banner for the right of citizens to have access to the laws that govern them. Bruce says he is most proud that he was able to break the monopoly on legal information held by commercial publishers. “The time was ripe for change, and we were the first to use the Web to try our hands at it.” A graduate of the Yale School of Drama, Tom started his career as a stage and production manager before joining Cornell Law School as director of educational technologies. The first seeds of the LII were sowed, Bruce once wrote, with two gin-and-tonics, consumed by someone else. The rest, as they say, is history -- a history Bruce recounts in this episode. Related links: End of an Era: Tom Bruce, Trailblazing Director of LII, to Retire after 27 Years. We’ll Meet Again, Don’t Know Where, Don’t Know When. On Law Technology Now: A Conversation With Legal Information Institute Cofounder Tom Bruce On Its 25th Anniversary. NEW: We are now on Patreon! Subscribe to our page to be able to access show transcripts, or to submit a question for our guests. Comment on this show: Record a voice comment on your mobile phone and send it to info@lawnext.com.

With Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the news and on the big screen recently, we decided to play the More Perfect show about her from back in November of 2017. This is the story of how Ginsburg, as a young lawyer at the ACLU, convinced an all-male Supreme Court to take discrimination against women seriously - using a case on discrimination against men.  This episode was reported by Julia Longoria. Special thanks to Stephen Wiesenfeld, Alison Keith, and Bob Darcy. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Support Radiolab today at Radiolab.org/donate. 

At the end of last month, Justice Anthony Kennedy, announced he would be retiring and stepping down effective July 31st, 2018. On the evening of July 9th, President Trump announced his top pick to fill Justice Kennedy’s vacant seat: Judge Brett Kavanaugh currently presides in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This recent news regarding Kennedy’s retirement comes just after the 2017-2018 Supreme Court session. He is also widely known as the "swing vote" in many Supreme Court decisions. So what will happen next and what does this mean for the future? Today on Lawyer 2 Lawyer, guest host Laurence Colletti, Elizabeth Slattery, a legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and David Lat, editor at large and founding editor of Above the Law, discuss Justice Kennedy's retirement and Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. In addition, they explore the subsequent reaction to Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, bias and ideology at SCOTUS, the recent Supreme Court session and Landmark cases therein, and the upcoming Supreme Court session. Elizabeth Slattery is a legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. She analyzes cases before the Supreme Court, judicial nominations, and the proper role of the courts. David Lat is editor at large and founding editor of Above the Law, as well as the author of Supreme Ambitions: A Novel. The "Marshall's Cry" provided by Oyez, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Special thanks to our sponsors, Clio.

Seth and JJ discuss the recent situation at the US-Mexico border. After discussing how asylum works, they go into the policy changes, which include prosecuting all crossers, separating all children, making asylees apply at a port of entry, and slowing down case management at ports. They look at relevant laws, 8 U.S. Code § 1325 , 1158, 1225, as well as the Flores agreement and question the legal basis of the Trump administration's position. JJ finishes by discussing the 2018 TIP Report's concerns about institutionalizing children and by explaining how U and T visas can assist victims of human trafficking who have crossed our borders. Sources: Unaccompanied Alien Children, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Asylum & the Rights of Refugees, International Justice Resource Center Undocumented Migration from the Northern Triangle of Central America, International Crisis Group Transnational Organized Crime in Central America and the Caribbean: A Threat Assessment, UNODC Can You Request Asylum at a U.S. Border or Entry Point?, AllLaw Requesting Asylum at U.S. Border? What to Expect at Credible Fear Interview, NOLO “Catch and release,” explained: the heart of Trump’s new border agenda, Vox What You Need to Know About Catch and Release, White House Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights, The Hill Immigrant Rights Groups Push Obama for Bolder Executive Action, The Nation Immigrant Rights Groups Will Start Protesting Obama Again, HuffPost What Obama did with migrant families vs. what Trump is doing, Vox The 1,500 “missing” migrant children: an immigration expert explains what you need to know, Vox The Trump administration’s separation of families at the border, explained, Vox Trump’s separation of families at the border: a visual explainer, Vox How Trump Came to Enforce a Practice of Separating Migrant Families, The New York Times DHS denies separating families seeking asylum, Axios 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien, Legal Information Institute Flores agreement: Trump’s executive order to end family separation might run afoul of a 1997 court ruling, Vox Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement, Catholic Legal Immigration Network 8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum, Legal Information Institute 8 U.S. Code § 1225 - Inspection by immigration officers; expedited removal of inadmissible arriving aliens; referral for hearing, Legal Information Institute Customs and Border Protection Is Breaking the Law by Refusing Entry to the Migrant Caravan Members, Immigration Impact (THREAD) Donald Trump and Secretary Nielsen are LYING about how our justice system works to justify tearing impoverished kids from their parents at the border., @SethAbramson on Twitter Exclusive: Trump administration plan would bar people who enter illegally from getting asylum, Vox Trump signs order stopping his policy of separating families at border, NBC News 500 migrant kids have been reunited with their parents. More than 1,000 are still caught in the system., Vox Kids in exchange for deportation: Detained migrants say they were told they could get kids back on way out of U.S., The Texas Tribune Trump will reunite separated families — but only if they agree to deportation, Vox A federal judge just ordered the Trump administration to speed up family reunifications, Vox Family detention is the new family separation, Vox's The Weeds on Art19 Judge rules that Trump administration has been wrongly detaining asylum seekers, USA Today Trump: Get illegal immigrants 'OUT' of America's 'front lawn', Fox News State Department decries institutionalization of children, The Washington Post Differences Between T and U Visas, NOLO Changes to U Visa processing in Fiscal Year 2017, Catholic Legal Immigration Network Photo: Wikipedia

Could abortion be banned in the United States? Since the election of President Trump the question has taken on a new urgency, for both sides of America's abortion wars. Philippa Thomas travels to two states which perfectly capture the debate – Texas and Kentucky – to explore, the past, present and future of this most controversial debate. In the first programme Philippa visits abortion clinics in Texas to hear from women who have had abortions, and protesters who would like to stop them, about why this issue is so important. She hears from a doctor who performs abortions, a state lawmaker who would like to stop him, and an activist who wants to remove the shame about abortion. In the state capital, Austin, Philippa meets Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who argued the famous Roe versus Wade case which made abortion legal across America, and she hears how the reaction against that judgement helped create modern conservatism, modern liberalism, and elect President Trump. Excerpts from Sarah Weddington's oral argument in the Roe versus Wade case are provided by Oyez, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School, at www.oyez.org. Photo: Pro-choice and pro-life activists demonstrate on the steps of the United States Supreme Court, 2016. Credit: Pete Marovich/Getty Images)

An unassuming string of 16 words tucked into the Constitution grants Congress extensive power to make laws that impact the entire nation. The Commerce Clause has allowed Congress to intervene in all kinds of situations — from penalizing one man for growing too much wheat on his farm, to enforcing the end of racial segregation nationwide. That is, if the federal government can make an economic case for it. This seemingly all-powerful tool has the potential to unite the 50 states into one nation and protect the civil liberties of all. But it also challenges us to consider: when we make everything about money, what does it cost us? The key voices:  Roscoe Filbrun Jr., Son of Roscoe Filbrun Sr., respondent in Wickard v. Filburn Ollie McClung Jr., Son of Ollie McClung Sr., respondent in Katzenbach v. McClung James M. Chen, professor at Michigan State University College of Law Jami Floyd, legal analyst and host of WNYC’s All Things Considered who, as a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, worked on the Violence Against Women Act Ari J. Savitzky, lawyer at WilmerHale  The key cases: 1824: Gibbons v. Ogden 1942: Wickard v. Filburn 1964: Katzenbach v. McClung 2000: United States v. Morrison 2012: National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius  Additional production for this episode by Derek John and Louis Mitchell. Special thanks to Jess Mador, Andrew Yeager, and Rachel Iacovone.                                                  Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. Support Radiolab today at Radiolab.org/donate.

An unassuming string of 16 words tucked into the Constitution grants Congress extensive power to make laws that impact the entire nation. The Commerce Clause has allowed Congress to intervene in all kinds of situations — from penalizing one man for growing too much wheat on his farm, to enforcing the end of racial segregation nationwide. That is, if the federal government can make an economic case for it. This seemingly all-powerful tool has the potential to unite the 50 states into one nation and protect the civil liberties of all. But it also challenges us to consider: when we make everything about money, what does it cost us?   The key voices: - Roscoe Filbrun Jr., Son of Roscoe Filbrun Sr., respondent in Wickard v. Filburn- Ollie McClung Jr., Son of Ollie McClung Sr., respondent in Katzenbach v. McClung- James M. Chen, professor at Michigan State University College of Law- Jami Floyd, legal analyst and host of WNYC’s All Things Considered who, as a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, worked on the Violence Against Women Act- Ari J. Savitzky, lawyer at WilmerHale    The key cases: - 1824: Gibbons v. Ogden- 1942: Wickard v. Filburn- 1964: Katzenbach v. McClung- 2000: United States v. Morrison- 2012: National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius   Additional production for this episode by Derek John and Louis Mitchell. Special thanks to Jess Mador, Andrew Yeager, and Rachel Iacovone.                                                                                                                    Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

The rules of oral argument at the Supreme Court are strict: when a justice speaks, the advocate has to shut up.  But a law student noticed that the rules were getting broken again and again — by men.  He and his professor set out to chart an epidemic of interruptions.  If women can’t catch a break in the boardroom or the legislature (or at the MTV VMA’s), what’s it going to take to let them speak from the bench of the highest court in the land? The key voices: Tonja Jacobi, professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law Dylan Schweers, former student at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law The key cases: 2016: Fisher v. University of Texas The key links: Justice Interrupted: The Effect of Gender, Ideology and Seniority at Supreme Court Oral Arguments   Special thanks to Franklin Chen and Deborah Tannen.> Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

On this episode, we revisit Edward Blum, a self-described “legal entrepreneur” and former stockbroker who has become something of a Supreme Court matchmaker: he takes an issue, finds the perfect plaintiff, matches them with lawyers, and helps the case work its way to the highest court in the land. His target: laws that differentiate between people based on race — including ones that empower minorities. More Perfect profiled Edward Blum in season one of the show. We catch up with him to hear about his latest effort to end affirmative action at Harvard.  The key voices: Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation Sheila Jackson Lee, Congresswoman for the 18th district of Texas The key cases: 1977: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 2003: Grutter v. Bollinger 2013: Shelby County v. Holder 2013: Fisher v. University of Texas (1) 2016: Fisher v. University of Texas (2) The key links: More Perfect Season 1: The Imperfect Plaintiffs Blum's websites seeking plaintiffs for cases he is building against Harvard University, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Wisconsin Students for Fair Admissions' complaint; and Harvard's response. “To become leaders in our diverse society, students must have the ability to work with people from different backgrounds, life experiences and perspectives. Many colleges across America – including Harvard College – receive applications from far more highly qualified individuals each year than they can possibly admit. When choosing among academically qualified applicants, colleges must continue to have the freedom and flexibility to consider each person’s unique backgrounds and life experiences, consistent with the legal standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court,  in order to provide the rigorous, enriching, and diverse campus environments that expand the horizons of all students. In doing so, American higher education institutions can continue to give every undergraduate exposure to peers with a deep and wide variety of academic interests, viewpoints, and talents in order to better challenge their own assumptions and develop the skills they need to succeed, and to lead, in an ever more diverse workforce and an increasingly interconnected world.”  - Robert Iuliano, senior vice president and general counsel of Harvard University  Special thanks to Guy Charles, Katherine Wells, and Matt Frassica. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

This story comes from the second season of Radiolab's spin-off podcast, More Perfect. To hear more, subscribe here. On a fall afternoon in 1984, Dethorne Graham ran into a convenience store for a bottle of orange juice. Minutes later he was unconscious, injured, and in police handcuffs. In this episode, we explore a case that sent two Charlotte lawyers on a quest for true objectivity, and changed the face of policing in the US.     The key voices: Dethorne Graham Jr., son of Dethorne Graham, appellant in Graham v. Connor Edward G. (Woody) Connette, lawyer who represented Graham in the lower courts Gerald Beaver, lawyer who represented Graham at the Supreme Court Kelly McEvers, host of Embedded and All Things Considered    The key case: 1989: Graham v. Connor   Additional production for this episode by Dylan Keefe and Derek John; additional music by Matt Kielty and Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to Cynthia Lee, Frank B. Aycock III, Josh Rosenkrantz, Leonard Feldman, and Ben Montgomery. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

On a fall afternoon in 1984, Dethorne Graham ran into a convenience store for a bottle of orange juice. Minutes later he was unconscious, injured, and in police handcuffs. In this episode, we explore a case that sent two Charlotte lawyers on a quest for true objectivity, and changed the face of policing in the US. The key voices: Dethorne Graham Jr., son of Dethorne Graham, appellant in Graham v. Connor Edward G. (Woody) Connette, lawyer who represented Graham in the lower courts Gerald Beaver, lawyer who represented Graham at the Supreme Court Kelly McEvers, host of Embedded and All Things Considered The key case: 1989: Graham v. Connor Additional production for this episode by Dylan Keefe and Derek John; additional music by Matt Kielty and Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to Cynthia Lee, Frank B. Aycock III, Josh Rosenkrantz, Leonard Feldman, Tom Dreisbach, and Ben Montgomery. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.  

“Equal protection of the laws” was granted to all persons by the 14th Amendment in 1868. But for nearly a century after that, women had a hard time convincing the courts that they should be allowed to be jurors, lawyers, and bartenders, just the same as men. A then-lawyer at the ACLU named Ruth Bader Ginsburg set out to convince an all-male Supreme Court to take sex discrimination seriously with an unconventional strategy. She didn’t just bring cases where women were the victims of discrimination; she also brought cases where men were the victims. In this episode, we look at how a key battle for gender equality was won with frat boys and beer.   The key voices: Carolyn Whitener, former owner of the Honk n’ Holler Curtis Craig, appellant in Craig v. Boren Fred Gilbert, lawyer who represented Craig in Craig v. Boren Mary Hartnett, adjunct professor at Georgetown Law Wendy Williams, professor emerita at Georgetown Law The key cases: 1873: Bradwell v. The State 1948: Goesart v. Cleary 1961: Hoyt v. Florida 1971: Reed v. Reed 1973: Frontiero v. Richardson 1975: Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld 1976: Craig v. Boren 1996: United States v. Virginia The key links: ACLU Women’s Rights Project My Own Words by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with Mary Hartnett and Wendy Williams Sisters in Law by Linda Hirshman “What’s Wrong With ‘Equal Rights’ For Women” by Phyllis Schlafly   Special thanks to Stephen Wiesenfeld, Alison Keith, and Bob Darcy. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is one of the most polarizing Supreme Court cases of all time. So what is it actually about, and why did the Justices decide the way they did? Justice Anthony Kennedy, often called the “most powerful man in America,” wrote the majority opinion in the case. In this episode, we examine Kennedy’s singular devotion to the First Amendment and look at how it may have influenced his decision in the case.  The key voices: Kai Newkirk, 99 Rise  Michael Boos, vice president and general counsel of Citizens United  Jim Bopp, lawyer, The Bopp Law Firm Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, a contributing editor of The Atlantic, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution Jeffrey Toobin, writer and contributor to The New Yorker and CNN Michael Dorf, professor of law at Cornell University and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy Alex Kozinski, circuit judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy** The key cases: 2010: Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commision The key links: Citizens United "Money Unlimited," by Jeffrey Toobin Correction: A earlier version of this episode misstated the date of the last day of the 2009 term.  Additional music for this episode by:  Gyan Riley  Kevin MacLeod "Bad Ideas (distressed)"Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Special thanks to Justin Levitt, Guy-Uriel Charles, William Baude, Helen Knowles, and Derek John.  Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. **This episode was taped prior to The Washington Post's reporting on Judge Alex Kozinski which was published on December 8, 2017. 

Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country’s ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach? The key voices: Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., son of activist Ken Saro-Wiwa Sr. Dolly Filártiga, sister of Joelito Filártiga Paloma Calles, daughter of Dolly Filártiga Peter Weiss, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights who represented Dolly Filártiga in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala Katherine Gallagher, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights Paul Hoffman, lawyer who represented Kiobel in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum John Bellinger, former legal adviser for the U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council William Casto, professor at Texas Tech University School of Law Eric Posner, professor at University of Chicago Law School Samuel Moyn, professor at Yale University René Horst, professor at Appalachian State University The key cases: 1984: Filártiga v. Peña-Irala 2013: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum 2017: Jesner v. Arab Bank The key links: Center for Constitutional Rights Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter. Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

The Supreme Court may not have been conceptualized as a co-equal branch of the federal government, but it became one as a result of the political maneuvering of Chief Justice John Marshall. The fourth (and longest-serving) chief justice was "a great lover of power," according to historian Jill Lepore, but he was also a great lover of secrecy. Marshall believed, in order for the justices to confer with each other candidly, their papers needed to remain secret in perpetuity. It was under this veil of secrecy that the biggest heist in the history of the Supreme Court took place.  The key voices: Jill Lepore, professor of American history at Harvard University The key links: "The Great Paper Caper," The New Yorker (2014) Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court justice 1939 to 1962 Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. 

For nearly 200 years of our nation’s history, the Second Amendment was an all-but-forgotten rule about the importance of militias. But in the 1960s and 70s, a movement emerged — led by Black Panthers and a recently-repositioned NRA — that insisted owning a firearm was the right of each and every American. So began a constitutional debate that only the Supreme Court could solve. That didn’t happen until 2008, when a Washington, D.C. security guard named Dick Heller made a compelling case. Sean Rameswaram interviews Black Panther co-founder Bobby Seale on the roof of the Oakland Museum of California, where “All Power to the People: Black Panthers at 50” was on display earlier this year. (Lisa Silberstein, Oakland Museum of California)  Joseph P. Tartaro, president of the Second Amendment Foundation, at his desk in Buffalo, New York. (Sean Rameswaram) The key voices: Adam Winkler, professor at UCLA School of Law, author of Gunfight Jill Lepore, professor of American history at Harvard University Stephen Halbrook, attorney specializing in Second Amendment litigation Bobby Seale, co-founder of the Black Panther Party John Aquilino, former spokesman of the National Rifle Association Joseph P. Tartaro, president of the Second Amendment Foundation Sanford Levinson, professor at the University of Texas Law School  Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute, represented Dick Heller in District of Columbia v. Heller Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, helped finance Dick Heller’s case in District of Columbia v. Heller Alan Gura, appellate constitutional attorney, argued District of Columbia v. Heller on behalf of Dick Heller Dick Heller, plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller Joan Biskupic, author of American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia  Jack Rakove, professor of history and political science at Stanford University  The key cases: 2008: District of Columbia v. Heller The key links: Black Panther Party protest the Mulford Act at the California State Capitol in Sacramento Dick Heller and his hat outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (Sean Rameswaram) Dick Heller and his gun on the job at a federal building in Washington, D.C. (Sean Rameswaram) Special thanks to Mark Hughes, Sally Hadden, Jamal Greene, Emily Palmer, Sharon LaFraniere, Alan Morrison, Robert Pollie, Joseph Blocher, William Baude, Tara Grove, and the Oakland Museum of California. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.