Podcasts about Loyalty

You might not think running marketing for over 130 wildly different restaurants sounds like fun, but Jay Schwedelson finds out that for Jennifer Bell, it's exactly that. From Michelin-starred fine dining to casual pizza joints, Jennifer has spent 25 years at Lettuce Entertain You, mastering how to scale loyalty, storytelling, and strategy without turning everything into a bland, one-size-fits-all experience.Jennifer oversees the marketing for Lettuce Entertain You...As a culinary-driven company, our restaurants - including R.J. Grunts, Aba, Hub 51, Wildfire, RPM Italian, M Burger, Shaw's Crab House, Mon Ami Gabi, Beatrix and more - offer diverse opportunities. But we all share the same goal: a desire to be the best we can be. If you want to be part of a progressive company with a firm commitment to its people, join the creative team of Lettuce partners and employees. Please visit https://www.lettucejobs.com to learn more about Lettuce and view our current openings.Lettuce Entertain You Restaurants is an independent, family-owned restaurant group based in Chicago that owns, manages and licenses more than 110 restaurants in Illinois, Minnesota, Maryland, Nevada, Texas, Virginia, Florida, Washington D.C. with Tennessee coming soon. We were founded in June 1971 by Richard Melman and Jerry A. Orzoff with the opening of R.J. Grunts and today, thanks to the creativity of our partners, we proudly serve guests at more than 60 concepts ranging from fast casual to fine dining restaurants.ㅤDownload the LettuceEats app: https://www.lettuce.com/lettuceeats-app/Visit Lettuce Entertain You: https://www.lettuce.com/Connect with Jennifer Bell on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jenniferleberbell/ㅤBest Moments:(01:30) Why the company's founder never wanted to be the biggest—just the best(03:45) How marketing is structured across 60+ brands without losing individuality(06:19) The “scary” shift from total flexibility to standardized tech platforms(08:58) The Scratch Off promo that moved from mailers to the app (and why servers loved it)(10:45) How they test and scale new tools without forcing every restaurant into it(11:31) Loyalty isn't just a program—it's their biggest strategic asset(13:45) Why they had to reinvent loyalty metrics across wildly different concepts(15:00) The matchmaking magic of pairing the right influencers with the right restaurants(17:39) Jennifer's favorite way to use AI (and how it makes guest experiences better)(20:45) Why two drinks help her stop analyzing every menu when dining outㅤCheck out our 100% FREE + VIRTUAL EVENTS! ->Guru Conference - The World's Largest Virtual EMAIL MARKETING Conference - Nov 6-7!Register here: www.GuruConference.comㅤCheck out Jay's YOUTUBE Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@schwedelsonCheck out Jay's TIKTOK: https://www.tiktok.com/@schwedelsonCheck Out Jay's INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/jayschwedelson/ㅤMASSIVE thank you

In dieser Episode des Loyalty Talk Podcasts begrüsse ich erneut die beiden Loyalty-Experten Michael Bregulla (Geschäftsführer von Knistr, einem führenden Anbieter für Loyalty-Technologie) und Alexander Süßel (Loyalty-Consultant und Loyalty-Specialist beim Gamification-Spezialisten Brame). Nach unserem spannenden Austausch über die Veränderungen rund um Loyalty-Programme im deutschen Einzelhandel in Episode #39, nehmen wir diesmal die Entwicklungen der letzten sechs Monate unter die Lupe: Was hat sich bei Rewe, Edeka, Payback und der DeutschlandCard getan? Wo befinden sich diese Player aktuell auf der "Marathonstrecke" Loyalty-Programm? Wir diskutieren unter anderem auch darüber, warum im deutschen Handel oft die „Joyalty“ fehlt und stattdessen ein starker Fokus auf Rabatten herrscht. Ausserdem beleuchten wir die Vor- und Nachteile von Multipartner-Programmen im Vergleich zu Stand-alone Händlerprogrammen – praxisnah, kritisch und mit vielen Insights aus dem Markt. Weiterführende Links: Knistr: https://www.knistr.com Brame: https://www.brame.io Michael Bregulla auf LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bregulla Alexander Süßel auf LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/suessel-alexander-loyalty Michael Bietenhader auf LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelbietenhader Alle Folgen des Loyalty Talk: https://www.loyaltytalk.ch Mehr zur MilesAhead AG: https://www.milesahead.ch

This week on That Entrepreneur Show, prepare to unlock the secrets of building iconic brands and driving unparalleled growth! We're thrilled to host Sheila Butler, a powerhouse Chief Marketing Officer with over 25 years of experience at industry giants like Disney, JPMorgan Chase, Choice Hotels, and Axiom Bank. Now, as the Founder and CMO of Butler Marketing Group in Orlando, Florida, Sheila brings her unparalleled expertise directly to visionary entrepreneurs.In this engaging episode, Sheila will share her unique perspective on brand transformation, revealing how she's helped major players pivot, grow, and resonate deeply with their audiences. We'll dive into the intricacies of marketing strategy, uncovering the frameworks and insights that truly move the needle in both B2C and B2B landscapes. Plus, get ready for a masterclass in loyalty program design and optimization, as Sheila unpacks how to turn customers into lifelong advocates.Beyond the corporate boardroom, Sheila will offer invaluable insights into her journey as an entrepreneur, particularly through the lens of fractional CMO services. If you're an entrepreneur looking to elevate your brand, build unbreakable customer loyalty, or gain strategic marketing leadership without the full-time commitment, this episode is your ultimate guide. Sheila's broad career background offers a rare blend of enterprise-level wisdom and agile entrepreneurial spirit – a truly unmissable conversation for anyone ready to transform their marketing game.Other areas discussed are: What to do after job elimination? How to create a customer connection High perceived value low perceived costSupport the showThank you for tuning in! Be sure to subscribe to stay current with our episodes. We want to feature you! Let us know about an episode you love by emailing PodcastsByLanci@gmail.com Want the episode freebie or have a question for our guest or Vincent? Interested in becoming a guest or show partner? Email us.Show Partners:Coming Alive Podcast Production: www.comingalivepodcastproduction.comJohn Ford's Empathy Card Set and App: https://www.empathyset.com/ Music Credits: Copyright Free Music from Adventure by MusicbyAden.

In this episode of Next in Media, Mike Shields interviews Dani Mariano, CEO of Razorfish, about their research into Gen Alpha, highlighting this generation's unique media consumption habits, brand maturity, and influence on household purchasing decisions, as well as Razorfish's "creator collab" program designed to meet the evolving demands of creator-centric marketing.

Ever wonder why top Republicans keep rallying around Donald Trump even as pressure mounts to unseal the Epstein client list? In this mini-episode, we unpack the three key drivers—fear of fallout, hidden secrets, and unbreakable party loyalty.

In this episode, Sarah Dinger, Executive Vice President of Franchise Operations at My Place Hotels, shares how training and development drive guest satisfaction and fuel business growth. Sarah explains the innovative approach her team takes, including a dedicated group that regularly visits properties to ensure consistent excellence. Learn how investing in people directly impacts guest loyalty and long-term success. A few more resources: If you're new to Hospitality Daily, start here. You can send me a message here with questions, comments, or guest suggestions If you want to get my summary and actionable insights from each episode delivered to your inbox each day, subscribe here for free. Follow Hospitality Daily and join the conversation on YouTube, LinkedIn, and Instagram. If you want to advertise on Hospitality Daily, here are the ways we can work together. If you found this episode interesting or helpful, send it to someone on your team so you can turn the ideas into action and benefit your business and the people you serve! Music for this show is produced by Clay Bassford of Bespoke Sound: Music Identity Design for Hospitality Brands

Join us as Heather Garbodin, Chief Customer Officer at American Airlines, reveals how the airline is reshaping customer loyalty beyond traditional rewards programs. From enhancing digital tools to elevating premium experiences, Heather shares how data-driven insights and cross-team collaboration are driving initiatives that make travel easier, more personalized, and truly seamless across the OneWorld alliance.Discover how small operational changes—like improved boarding processes and reduced gate-checked bags—are creating big wins for both customers and the airline. This episode dives into the emotional connection, trust, and reliability that American Airlines fosters to turn everyday travelers into lifelong advocates.Hosted by Bridget Blaise-Shamai Show Notes:1) Heather Garbodin2) American Airlines3) Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance 4) Moments of Truth 5) AAdvantage from American Airlines - Insight-led Innovation & Industry Leadership6) AAdvantage - Caring for Loyal Customers through Challenging Times.

This wrap-up episode celebrates a 21st season dedicated to proving that affiliate marketing is actually about every touchpoint in your customer's journey—from initial awareness through long-term retention. Host Lee-Ann Johnstone welcomed industry leaders who shared cutting-edge strategies, data-driven insights, and real-world case studies that demonstrate how sophisticated tracking, authentic partnerships, and cross-channel integration are revolutionising the way brands approach affiliate marketing. Whether you're looking to scale your existing program or build one from scratch, this season has delivered actionable wisdom that will help you move beyond transactional thinking to create lasting, profitable partnerships.Key segments of this podcast and where you can tune in to go direct: [03:28] Michael Cole explains why brands get affiliate attribution wrong and how to fix it.[23:59] Aaron Paul discusses AI's impact on affiliate marketing and content creation.[33:52] Lauren Garner discusses the mindset shift to treating affiliates as customers and scaling systems.Our thanks go to Everflow as this season's sponsor, powering our exploration of why affiliate marketing is about every moment in the customer journey.We return next week with a brand new season of the Affiliate Marketing Podcast, and our season sponsor is Mate Affiliates. Would you like to talk about sponsoring our podcast, or gaining a brand mention? Take a look here.#AffiliateWINS: Your Victory Lap Starts Now!Join the #AffiliateWINS movement! Share your affiliate marketing triumphs and success stories on social media to help spread positivity throughout the industry.Time to flip the script: less calling out, more calling UP. Let's make #AffiliateWINS the hashtag that dominates feeds everywhere!Ready to brag? Share success stories like these:"Just closed our best Q1 ever with the partner who's been in it with us since day one. Loyalty pays dividends. #AffiliateWINS""Our affiliate just turned a shoestring budget into 5x ROAS using nothing but authentic UGC and love. Small spend, massive returns. #AffiliateWINS""Here's to the quiet achievers, steadily driving volume without the spotlight. You're the backbone of this industry. #AffiliateWINS”Each week on the Affiliate Marketing Podcast, we're showcasing why affiliate isn't just a moment—it's EVERY moment in your business. Share your #AffiliateWINS as we unveil an incredible lineup of guests and features.Use the hashtag to shout-out your wins and positivity on social channels or contact us directly with your stories.Send me a text with your questions

The Seven & I, Alimentation Couche-Tard deal falls apart, Dollar General Executive Vice President and CFO Kelly Dilts steps down, and Hop Shop Convenience Stores revamps its loyalty program.

The following article of the Health industry is: “Generic to Strategic: Redefining Patient Loyalty in Healthcare” by  Alex Ruiz Bernal, Health Consultant, Independent Contributor.

Watch Us On YouTube! In this week's episode, Richard and Ed deep dive into the Bilt Rewards program. It's more than just a credit card- it's an entire loyalty ecosystem! Hear all the ins and outs of the program, including how to maximize earning Bilt points, Bilt status, Rent Day strategies, and even a look into the near future of the program. Sign up for Bilt Rewards here! If you enjoy the podcast, I hope you'll take a moment to leave us a rating. That helps us grow our audience! If you're looking for a way to support the show, we'd love to have you join us in our Travel Slack Community.  Join me and other travel experts for informative conversations about the travel world, the best ways to use your miles and points, Zoom happy hours and exciting giveaways. Monthly access Annual access Personal consultation plus annual access We have witty, funny, sarcastic discussions about travel, for members only. My fellow travel experts are available to answer your questions and we host video chats multiple times per month. Follow Us! Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/milestogopodcast/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@milestogopodcast Ed Pizza: https://www.instagram.com/pizzainmotion/ Richard Kerr: https://www.instagram.com/kerrpoints/    

Even from behind bars, Ghislaine Maxwell has remained a steadfast and vocal defender of Prince Andrew, clinging to a narrative of innocence that defies the mountain of public scrutiny and survivor testimony. In interviews and through intermediaries, Maxwell has repeatedly insisted that the infamous photo of Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre—his arm around her bare waist, Maxwell herself grinning in the background—is either doctored or misrepresented. This denial comes despite the fact that the image has been widely authenticated and corroborated by multiple individuals, including Giuffre. Maxwell's unwavering defense appears less about truth and more about protecting a shared past—one steeped in elite privilege, mutual secrets, and potentially incriminating knowledge. Her loyalty to Andrew reads not as moral conviction, but as a desperate act of preservation for a world that once protected them both.What stands out about Maxwell's continued defense of Prince Andrew is how consistent it has remained, even after her own conviction. Rather than expressing any accountability or reflecting on the damage caused by the trafficking ring she was convicted of helping to run, Maxwell has chosen to double down on denying Andrew's involvement. She's made repeated claims that the photo of Andrew with Virginia Giuffre is fake, despite no credible evidence to support that. Her stance seems rooted less in legal strategy and more in loyalty to past allies. It suggests that, even in prison, Maxwell is still protecting the network of high-profile individuals connected to Epstein, perhaps in the hope that continued silence or allegiance might one day benefit her.(commercial at 9:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell offers no apology to Epstein victims | Daily Mail Online

This week on Between Us Moms, Katie and Hallie dive headfirst into the chaos and mania of summer time with kids and the wildness of having toddlers in general -- think rummaging through kitchen drawers, messy homes, why quiet isn't always best -- and the delicate balance of trying to find a moment of peace. But it's not all madness. The ladies are back with another round of their Get to Know You game, revealing some of the best but hardest life lessons they've had to learn. They also spice things up with a deep dive into their favorite conspiracy theories—get ready for some jaw-dropping takes on Jeffrey Epstein, the Illuminati, the Denver Airport Bunker, Marilyn Monroe and even Dolly Parton's rumored double life. But that's not all! Katie and Hallie also share their current obsessions -- Katie's is contradictory while Hallie's is a 90's throwback. And, of course, they're opening up about their biggest personal goals right now—because who doesn't love a little ambition mixed with real talk? Reese Witherspoon -- are you listening? Join the conversation as they tackle it all with humor, honesty, and the chaotic energy of summer motherhood. Tune in, laugh, and maybe even start questioning a few things...The show has become a go-to listen and community for mamas all over the world! New episodes of the Between Us Moms podcast drop every Wednesday! See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to episode #226! Carnival Cruise Line has announced their new loyalty program, Carnival Rewards, which will be launching June 1, 2026.  Benefits include priority check-in, embarkation and disembarkation, complimentary laundry services, beverages, speciality dining meals and more. Scott's first mate, Pam joins the show to give her perspective as a “loyalty rewards savvy consumer”. Always watching, researching and getting the most out of these programs' benefits and why you should study and become a savvy cruise consumer too. We know that this new program has created a lot of commentary all over social media, but we would love to hear your thoughts as well.  Enjoy the show! Tommy & Scott

Kroger consolidates its Texas divisions, RaceWay launches a new loyalty program, and the Minneapolis City Council sets a minimum price for vapes at $25.

In this episode of The Speed of Culture, Matt Britton speaks with Richard Nunn, CEO, United MileagePlus, and Maggie Schmerin, Chief Advertising Officer at United Airlines. Together, they unpack how United is rewriting the rules of airline marketing, from loyalty built on personalization to Starlink-powered experiences and culture-driven creative.Follow Suzy on Twitter: @AskSuzyBizFollow Richard Nunn on LinkedInFollow Maggie Schmerin on LinkedInSubscribe to The Speed of Culture on your favorite podcast platform.And if you have a question or suggestions for the show, send us an email at suzy@suzy.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The story of Túrin Turambar reaches its tragic end as Túrin learns of what happened and implores Gurthang to do its job quickly. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Even from behind bars, Ghislaine Maxwell has remained a steadfast and vocal defender of Prince Andrew, clinging to a narrative of innocence that defies the mountain of public scrutiny and survivor testimony. In interviews and through intermediaries, Maxwell has repeatedly insisted that the infamous photo of Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre—his arm around her bare waist, Maxwell herself grinning in the background—is either doctored or misrepresented. This denial comes despite the fact that the image has been widely authenticated and corroborated by multiple individuals, including Giuffre. Maxwell's unwavering defense appears less about truth and more about protecting a shared past—one steeped in elite privilege, mutual secrets, and potentially incriminating knowledge. Her loyalty to Andrew reads not as moral conviction, but as a desperate act of preservation for a world that once protected them both.What stands out about Maxwell's continued defense of Prince Andrew is how consistent it has remained, even after her own conviction. Rather than expressing any accountability or reflecting on the damage caused by the trafficking ring she was convicted of helping to run, Maxwell has chosen to double down on denying Andrew's involvement. She's made repeated claims that the photo of Andrew with Virginia Giuffre is fake, despite no credible evidence to support that. Her stance seems rooted less in legal strategy and more in loyalty to past allies. It suggests that, even in prison, Maxwell is still protecting the network of high-profile individuals connected to Epstein, perhaps in the hope that continued silence or allegiance might one day benefit her.(commercial at 9:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell offers no apology to Epstein victims | Daily Mail Online

Even from behind bars, Ghislaine Maxwell has remained a steadfast and vocal defender of Prince Andrew, clinging to a narrative of innocence that defies the mountain of public scrutiny and survivor testimony. In interviews and through intermediaries, Maxwell has repeatedly insisted that the infamous photo of Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre—his arm around her bare waist, Maxwell herself grinning in the background—is either doctored or misrepresented. This denial comes despite the fact that the image has been widely authenticated and corroborated by multiple individuals, including Giuffre. Maxwell's unwavering defense appears less about truth and more about protecting a shared past—one steeped in elite privilege, mutual secrets, and potentially incriminating knowledge. Her loyalty to Andrew reads not as moral conviction, but as a desperate act of preservation for a world that once protected them both.What stands out about Maxwell's continued defense of Prince Andrew is how consistent it has remained, even after her own conviction. Rather than expressing any accountability or reflecting on the damage caused by the trafficking ring she was convicted of helping to run, Maxwell has chosen to double down on denying Andrew's involvement. She's made repeated claims that the photo of Andrew with Virginia Giuffre is fake, despite no credible evidence to support that. Her stance seems rooted less in legal strategy and more in loyalty to past allies. It suggests that, even in prison, Maxwell is still protecting the network of high-profile individuals connected to Epstein, perhaps in the hope that continued silence or allegiance might one day benefit her.(commercial at 9:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell offers no apology to Epstein victims | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this episode, host Pete Moore sits down with Mary Laudati, a seasoned sales and marketing leader with deep roots in the HALO (Health, Active Lifestyle, Outdoor) space. From her days leading the sales group at Sports Club LA to her current role as a consultant working with top clubs across the U.S. and internationally, Mary shares her insights on building effective sales strategies, leveraging cutting-edge software like Salesforce, and creating a powerful culture of member engagement and retention. She provides boots-on-the-ground, immediately actionable tips on using data, recording sales calls, and mystery shopping to pinpoint where clubs are leaving revenue on the table—plus, the importance of strong onboarding and personal connections to keep members coming back. Mary also discusses the latest trends in CRM technology, club operations, and the shift toward shared memberships and referral models. Whether you're a club owner, sales team leader, or just passionate about the business of the HALO space, Mary's advice on finding—and keeping—members is pure gold. On early member retention, she states, "Those three months are crucial . . . for those clubs that don't have salespeople, not only do you want to embrace the incoming (they've got to follow up and make a lot of phone calls), but they also have to check on the new members and look at their attendance to make sure that they're coming in." Key themes discussed Importance of sales strategies and processes in health clubs. Customizable CRM/software solutions for sales and retention. The critical role of training and investing in your employees. KPIs, net growth, revenue, and retention. Mystery shopping and call recording for sales team improvement. Enhancing member engagement, onboarding, and relationship-building. Shared membership/referral programs to boost membership and loyalty. A few key takeaways:  1. Sales Process Needs Structure and Ongoing Evaluation: Mary emphasized that many clubs claim to have a strong sales team, but more often than not lack strategies, scripts, or KPIs. She underlined the importance of having sequential, process-driven systems and regular evaluation—often through recording, analyzing calls, and “mystery shopping” the current experience. 2. CRMs and Custom Software Are Game-Changers: A major part of the episode centers around the critical need for effective, customizable CRMs. Mary championed Salesforce for its adaptability, noting her experience implementing it at Millennium Partners. She highlighted recent successes helping clubs (like Powerhouse Gyms in Novi, MI) leverage technology to understand their numbers, coach their teams, and boost revenue. 3. Training and Investment in People Drives Revenue: Laudati strongly advocates investing in employee training alongside technology. She's seen clients who paired software adoption with robust training, and realized up to 25% growth year-over-year. She's a believer in hands-on onboarding, coaching, and ensuring team members are held accountable—not just to sales, but to ongoing member engagement. 4. Retention is as Critical as Acquisition: Both Mary and Pete stressed the importance of looking beyond just new member acquisition to also address attrition. Laudati recommends clubs track net growth (sales minus cancels), invest in the early months of a member's journey, proactively reach out to disengaged members, and create meaningful connections (a la “Cheers,” where everyone knows your name!) 5. Shared Memberships and Ongoing Engagement are Winning Strategies: Highlighting clients like Bay Clubs, Laudati also talked about the explosion of shared or referral-based memberships and how they can create instant community and value. She noted the value of actively integrating new members into programs or group activities (think personal training, group ex, or even pickleball) during the crucial first three months to help maximize retention. Resources:  Mary Laudati: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mary-laudati-89206232 Mary Laudati Sales Consulting: https://www.marylaudati.com   HALO Talks 2 Minute Financial Drills (Videos): https://bit.ly/2minutedrills  Prospect Wizard: https://www.theprospectwizard.com  Promotion Vault: http://www.promotionvault.com HigherDose: http://www.higherdose.com

This episode is available in audio format on our Let's Talk Loyalty podcast and in video format on www.Loyalty.TV.eBucks Rewards is truly an exceptional programme as you'll hear so we're delighted to welcome Pieter Woodhatch - CEO of eBucks Rewards in South Africa as today's guestOwned and operated by First National Bank, it is one of South Africa's leading rewards programmes which has now been rewarding banking customers for 25 years! Pieter today explains how members can earn eBucks while doing everyday things – like filling up with fuel, buying airtime and shopping in their partner retailers including important categories like pharmacy and grocery shopping - and then they can spend those eBucks on anything from a dream holiday to monthly essentials or the latest gadget. Please enjoy our conversation with Pieter Woodhatch from eBucks Rewards. Hosted by Paula Thomas.Show Notes:1) Pieter Woodhatch 2) eBucks3) Rassie: Stories of Life and Rugby4) #416: South Africa's FNB eBucks Rewards is the biggest winner at The International Awards

Send us a textDrew Kimball, Relationship Manager at SpotOn, joins Zack Oates to talk about what it really takes to build lasting relationships in hospitality. With over 15 years in B2B sales and a background in restaurants, Drew shares stories from his work with operators, his time as a game store owner, and how he helps brands improve guest experience, efficiency, and revenue.Zack and Drew discuss:Why relationship-building is Drew's business superpowerThe four “core” pillars every restaurant should focus onReal-world examples of improving table turn and guest feedbackHow to provide value through authentic, personal connectionWhat a board game store has to do with hospitalityThanks, Drew!Links:https://www.linkedin.com/in/drew-kimball-844a1912/https://www.linkedin.com/company/spoton/https://www.instagram.com/spoton/https://www.spoton.com/

Today, we express our love and affection for our team. Saving the galaxy is hard work, but someone's gotta do it. Show Notes Super NPC Radio – Patreon - Discord-  Bluesky – Instagram – Twitch Conner McCabe – Call Me By Your Game podcast - Bluesky - Twitch July Diaz: Bluesky Nick Costanza: Bluesky Mikey McCollor: YouTube Roxy Polk: BlueSky - Twitch

Even from behind bars, Ghislaine Maxwell has remained a steadfast and vocal defender of Prince Andrew, clinging to a narrative of innocence that defies the mountain of public scrutiny and survivor testimony. In interviews and through intermediaries, Maxwell has repeatedly insisted that the infamous photo of Prince Andrew with Virginia Giuffre—his arm around her bare waist, Maxwell herself grinning in the background—is either doctored or misrepresented. This denial comes despite the fact that the image has been widely authenticated and corroborated by multiple individuals, including Giuffre. Maxwell's unwavering defense appears less about truth and more about protecting a shared past—one steeped in elite privilege, mutual secrets, and potentially incriminating knowledge. Her loyalty to Andrew reads not as moral conviction, but as a desperate act of preservation for a world that once protected them both.What stands out about Maxwell's continued defense of Prince Andrew is how consistent it has remained, even after her own conviction. Rather than expressing any accountability or reflecting on the damage caused by the trafficking ring she was convicted of helping to run, Maxwell has chosen to double down on denying Andrew's involvement. She's made repeated claims that the photo of Andrew with Virginia Giuffre is fake, despite no credible evidence to support that. Her stance seems rooted less in legal strategy and more in loyalty to past allies. It suggests that, even in prison, Maxwell is still protecting the network of high-profile individuals connected to Epstein, perhaps in the hope that continued silence or allegiance might one day benefit her.(commercial at 9:05)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell offers no apology to Epstein victims | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Are you truly fulfilling your role on the board—or just filling a seat? Discover how Adventist pastors and leaders can honor their ethical and spiritual responsibilities through intentional, informed, and mission-driven board service.

Vlad goes down rabbit holes about going out with the boys after 40, dealing with a nasty mother-in-law, building a duplex, having a big ego, pathological liars & where he wants Loyalty or Respect. DNA DISTILLERY (AWARD WINNING RAKIJA)Award winning Rakija company with immaculate celebratory beverages. Check out the entire range on the below websites, order a tasting pack or some of their flagship, amazing rakija today! https://www.dnadistillery.comCARDSTRIKE! (NEW PODCAST SPONSOR!!!)  Amazing Basketball cards, Michael Jordan memorabilia and everything collectable sports card buying and selling!!!https://www.cardstrike.com.auROYAL STACKS! (IMMACULATE BURGERS)Melbourne's Greatest Burgers! Royal Stacks is a booming burger chain in Victoria with classic burgers, shakes and more, with a 90s vibe and high quality food! https://www.royalstacks.com.auMETROPOLITAN STONE (Kitchens, Cabinets, Laundry, All Cabinets)We have a combined 30 years experience in the cabinet making industry in Victoria! Everything from small projects to large projects!Benchtop change overs, Kitchen facilities, Kitchens, Laundries, Bathroom cabinets, T.V units, Wardrobes etc!MENTION: VLADContact: MATT 0425797488Matthew@metropolitanstone.com.auhttp://www.metropolitanstone.com.auORANGE LEGAL GROUP (Specialising in Property law for purchasing and selling, conveyancing, in-house Mortgage broker & Chartered Account! One stop shop for ALL property needs! Wrap! FREE Contract reviews for buyers before purchasing property!Mention VLAD!https://www.orangelegalgroup.com.auEmail: property@orangelegalgroup.com.auContact: mycousinvlad@gmail.comhttp://www.instagram.com/mycousinvladSend Vlad a Text MessageSupport the showBE GOODDO GOODGET GOOD

In this episode of Non-Profit North Stars with Jim Eskin, we spotlight Larry Kosow, Principal and Treasurer of Venture Tape, whose lifelong passion for philanthropy and Boston University has shaped his extraordinary journey. A dedicated BU alumnus with a deep family legacy at the university, Larry has played a pivotal role in supporting BU's storied hockey program, including funding the university's TV broadcast booth in memory of his father. Larry shares the story of his family's immigration, perseverance, and entrepreneurial success—how his grandfather's journey through Ellis Island and his father's service in World War II led to a deep-rooted commitment to education and philanthropy. He also dives into his love for BU hockey, his involvement with the Friends of BU Hockey, and how sports became a bridge between his family's values and his philanthropic efforts. Key Takeaways: ✅ Family Legacy & Philanthropy – How generational values shaped Larry's commitment to giving back. ✅ The Power of Education – The impact of BU on Larry's life and why he continues to support its programs. ✅ Building Community Through Sports – How Larry's involvement in BU hockey helped forge a lasting legacy. ✅ Lessons in Business & Nonprofits – Insights from Larry's entrepreneurial journey and how they translate to nonprofit success. ✅ Giving Back With Purpose – The importance of philanthropy in creating lasting change. Tune in for an inspiring conversation about leadership, legacy, and the power of community.

Part 35 – Love, Labor, and Loyalty: Finishing Well 1 Corinthians 16:5–24As we close our journey through 1 Corinthians, today's message centers on Paul's heartfelt final instructions and the personal tone of his apostolic leadership. We explore themes of relational ministry, kingdom partnerships, and faith-filled perseverance. Paul models flexibility in planning, deep love for the body, and unwavering loyalty to Yeshua.Highlights include:Paul's travel plans shaped by the Spirit and the biblical calendar (vv. 5–9)Honoring fellow workers like Timothy and Apollos (vv. 10–12)A powerful exhortation to stand firm, be strong, and do everything in love (vv. 13–14)Recognition of faithful service (vv. 15–18)Emphasis on unity across regions (vv. 19–21)Sobering final words: “Maranatha!” and “Let love for Yeshua be sincere” (vv. 22–24)Key Takeaways:True leadership flows from love and humility.Partnership in the Gospel requires mutual honor and trust.God's Kingdom is built through faith, not fame.A disciple's life is marked by watchfulness, courage, love, and a longing for Messiah's return.Let your love be real.Let your faith be strong.Let your labor be fruitful.Let your hope be in His coming.“The grace of the Lord Yeshua be with you. My love to all of you in Messiah Yeshua. Amen.”

Week 5 of Love Island UK Season 12 means one thing: Casa Amor is here, and chaos levels are officially off the charts! Chris and Dave from Chris and Dave's Reality TV Podcast dive into all the head-turning madness, heartbreak, and brutal dumpings that had us shouting at the telly (and probably each other).

In this discussion of chapters 18 and 19 of 'Memories of Ice', the participants delve into the complexities of character motivations, the role of secrets, and the moral dilemmas faced by the Malazan army. Quick Ben's character is highlighted as a central figure, showcasing his power and the intricacies of his relationships with other characters. The conversation also explores the nature of worship and the influence of gods in the Malazan universe, culminating in a rich analysis of the themes of morality and consequence in war. In this conversation, the participants delve into the intricate dynamics of loyalty, command, and character development within a fantasy narrative. They explore the complexities of Silver Fox's character, her origins, and the emotional burdens of leadership. The discussion also touches on the decline of technology in fantasy settings, the legacy of ancient civilizations, and the future of humanity's technological advancement. The tragic nature of relationships and character connections is highlighted, providing a rich tapestry of themes that resonate throughout the narrative.Send us a messageSupport the showFilm Chewing Podcast: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2235582/followLens Chewing on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@lenschewingSpeculative Speculations: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/speculative-speculationsSupport the podcast: https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/7EQ7XWFUP6K9EJoin Riverside.fm: https://riverside.fm/?via=steve-l

People don't just want a paycheck — they want purpose.A paycheck gets compliance. But purpose? That gets commitment.Mission-driven workers are 54% more likely to stay long-term. Loyalty like that doesn't come from perks — it comes from meaning.Connect the task to the impact. Show your team who benefits from their work.How are you helping your team see the purpose behind what they do?⚡️FREE RESOURCE:

Who has leaked information? Who has betrayed Trump and his cabinet? Who is disloyal? It's like the plot of a political thriller at the FBI where director Kash Patel is forcing dozens of senior officials to take polygraph tests. According to the New York Times, Patel wants to know.whether they have ever said anything bad about him. ICE raids at farms in Southern and Central California targeted workers in the fields. Governor Gavin Newsom posted video of kids being exposed to chemical agents and some crying because their parents were arrested. Is this the America voters wanted? We welcome former ABC White House political correspondent Jim Avila to talk about this week in politics. A lighter moment as we head south for Friday Fabulous Florida… let's see what trouble people are cooking up with hot weather, meth, and gators. The Culture Blaster, Michael Snyder, is back and better than ever. Why, it's almost like he's Superman! Michael will be giving us all the details on new movie releases in the theaters and streaming on your TV.

SummaryIn this episode of the 3 Pillars podcast, Chase Tobin delves into the theme of loyalty within leadership, drawing from his experiences in the Marine Corps and Christian teachings. He emphasizes the importance of loyalty in building strong teams, defining it through the lens of military doctrine and personal anecdotes. The discussion covers how loyalty manifests in various aspects of life, including physical fitness, mental fortitude, and the training of subordinates. Tobin also addresses potential pitfalls of loyalty and how it integrates with other leadership traits, concluding with a reflection on the legacy of loyalty.Chapters00:00 Introduction to Leadership and Loyalty01:45 The Essence of Loyalty08:13 Defining Loyalty in the Marine Corps11:03 Loyalty from a Christian Perspective14:45 Physical Fitness and Loyalty17:22 Mental Fortitude and Loyalty24:31 Training Loyalty in Subordinates26:58 Pitfalls of Loyalty29:18 Loyalty's Connection to Other Traits30:34 Conclusion and Legacy of LoyaltySUBSCRIBE TO THE NEW PODCAST CHANNEL HERE: https://www.youtube.com/@3PillarsPodcast Takeaways-Loyalty is essential for team cohesion and success.-The Marine Corps defines loyalty as faithfulness to peers and superiors.-Loyalty is bi-directional, encompassing all relationships within a unit.-Covenant faithfulness reflects God's loyalty to humanity.-Physical fitness is a commitment to your team.-Shared suffering builds loyalty among team members.-Mental fortitude is crucial for maintaining loyalty under stress.-Training subordinates in loyalty fosters a strong team culture.-Careerism and cliques can undermine loyalty in teams.-Loyalty should be principled, not blind allegiance.God bless you all. Jesus is King. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭5‬:‭8‬ ‭KJV‬‬I appreciate all the comments, topic suggestions, and shares! Find the "3 Pillars Podcast" on all major platforms. For more information, visit the 3 Pillars Podcast website: https://3pillarspodcast.comDon't forget to check out the 3 Pillars Podcast on Goodpods and share your thoughts by leaving a rating and review: https://goodpods.app.link/3X02e8nmIub Please Support Veteran's For Child Rescue: https://vets4childrescue.org/ Join the conversation: #3pillarspodcast

​This week on Funky Friday, Trae Tha Truth sits down for a powerful and deeply personal conversation. From growing up in Houston and navigating the Texas music scene to fatherhood, special needs parenting, and fighting through an emotional custody battle, Trae opens up like never before. He shares insights on legacy, leadership, and his community-driven mission, alongside reflections on working with legends like Jay Prince and T.I. Tune in for heartfelt moments, hard truths, and inspiring stories of resilience and purpose.00:00- Introduction00:41 Welcoming the Guest: Trae Tha Truth01:59 Growing Up in Houston03:42 The Unique Texas Music Culture07:25 Fatherhood and Family Dynamics15:58 Custody Battle and Emotional Strain33:21 Advice for Parents in Custody Battles37:08 Raising a Child with Special Needs39:22 Heartfelt Moments and Motivations40:20 Nico's Superpower and Family Dynamics41:12 Thoughts on Nepotism and Legacy Building47:05 Music Career Beginnings and Jay Prince50:36 Leadership and Growth with TI53:20 Philanthropy and Community Impact56:16 Upcoming Project: Angel01:01:29 Reflections on Standing Up for What's Right01:03:15 Fatherhood and Final Thoughts

Today is a special episode because Journey is officially live! I'm thrilled to sit down with John Sutton, the visionary founder of Journey, to talk about how this groundbreaking loyalty platform for independent hotels and private rentals came to life.  We'll dive into John's original inspiration, discuss the future of guest loyalty, and highlight the incredible Alliance Partners who've joined us early on this journey. Journey unites unique, independent hotels and private rental homes, offering travelers personalized rewards and unique experiences while empowering operators with advanced technology and guest insights traditionally reserved for major hotel chains. John shares his bold predictions for what's next in travel and explains how Journey is reshaping the hospitality landscape. If you're an independent hotel or unique stay operator interested in joining the Journey Alliance, you can apply to join here! Ready to join us on this exciting adventure? Download the Journey Members App on the App Store today!

Offering diverse insurance products isn't just about additional revenue streams—it's about building unbreakable customer relationships, especially when economic uncertainty has people questioning every financial decision. We explore how forward-thinking financial institutions are evolving beyond traditional banking to become true partners in financial wellness, utilizing insurance as a bridge to deeper, more meaningful customer engagement. I'm joined on the Banking Transformed podcast by two industry experts: Erin Allen, Vice President of Insurance Strategy and Distribution, and Norm Brown, Senior Director of Client and Customer Experience at Franklin Madison. If you've ever wondered why your customers might be more loyal to their insurance provider than their bank, or how to turn financial anxiety into opportunity, this conversation is for you.

In part two of our deep dive into chapters 17–21 of Crown of Midnight by Sarah J. Maas, we explore the unraveling power dynamics between Celaena, Chaol, and Dorian as personal and political boundaries begin to blur. Through our dual literary lens approach and 13 years of combined academic training, we examine how metaphors, foreshadowing, symbolism, plot devices, and imagery reveal the growing cracks in each character's path. This week, we ask:"We see Chaol struggle with his honor and Celaena struggle with her destiny. Can the two of them even have a successful relationship when they are driven/haunted by different things?" Join us as we analyze: – The complicated dance between Celaena and Chaol, both literal and metaphorical – The foreshadowing hidden in Dorian's growing powers and Nehemia's cryptic knowledge – Symbolic imagery from Celaena's dreams and her solitary mourning – The weight of past trauma, shifting loyalty, and what “home” really means to a girl who has lost everything With a mix of academic rigor and emotional insight, we unpack the tension, heartbreak, and red flags that define this turning point in the novel, and the Massverse. Spoilers ahead for Throne of Glass, Crown of Midnight, and Heir of Fire. All other spoilers will be contained to the Breadcrumbs & Broomsticks section at the end of the episode. This is Part 2 of Episode 4. Sponsor: Stop putting off those doctor's appointments and use ZocDoc. Go to Zocdoc.com/BOOKTALK to find and instantly book a top-rated doctor today. Share your thoughts for a chance to be featured! Submit them at ⁠⁠booktalkforbooktok.com⁠⁠ for a future mini-episode or exclusive Patreon discussion. Support the Show: Patreon: ⁠⁠patreon.com/booktalkforbooktok⁠⁠ Merch: ⁠⁠Etsy Store⁠⁠ Follow Us on Social: Instagram: @BookTalkForBookTok TikTok: @BookTalkForBookTok YouTube: @BookTalkForBookTok Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

http://www.CoffeeWithRhadi.com - Here We talk about how sport is a jealous lover that demands our full commitment and devotion. If we cheat on sport by skipping practice, being distracted, or not giving it our all, it will leave us and our dreams behind. To achieve greatness, we must be faithful and sacrifice everything for sport.Please visit: www.CoffeeWithRhadi.com - Follow us onFacebook:https://www.facebook.com/Coffeewithrhadi/?ref=br_rsInstagram:https://www.instagram.com/coffeewithrhadi/YouTube:www.youtube.com/channel/UCCeRmAFATZ9y1Tq2Xv0t_SQ?view_as=subscriber?sub_confirmation=1PODCAST: Find your platform: https://pod.link/1327983677 #coffeewithrhadi #rhadi #rhadiferguson #olympian #motivationalquotes #inspirationalquotes #motivationalquote #lifequotes #quotesdaily #motivationquotes #motivation100 #keepgrowing #hustle247 #successdiaries #successsecrets #successtip #motivationvideo #motivatingquotes #successprinciples #millionairegentleman #successgoals #motivation302 #successadict #mindsetreset #repurpose #sport #dedication #loyalty #discipline #greatness

In this episode of "The Free Lawyer," host Gary interviews Katie Mickelson, a prominent family law attorney in Illinois. Katie shares her journey from public relations to becoming an equity partner in her law firm. She emphasizes the importance of emotional intelligence in family law, effective communication, and maintaining client relationships post-divorce. Katie discusses her leadership philosophy, which focuses on humility, teamwork, and creating a supportive work environment. She advises lawyers to find joy in their work and explore new opportunities if they feel stagnant. The episode concludes with insights on the future of legal practice and the importance of client-centered resolutions.Known for her thoughtful and straightforward approach to family law, Kathryn Homburger Mickelson has distinguished herself among her peers by identifying her individual client's goals and then drawing on her extensive courtroom and mediation experience to bring strategic and empowering representation to each case. By looking at family law issues pragmatically, Ms. Mickelson will craft strategies that will result in resolution that is efficient, expeditious and drama-free. Ms. Mickelson understands and appreciates that no client is the same and that long after family law matters are resolved, the individual and their family remain. It is this understanding that has driven Ms. Mickelson to ensure that her clients are treated with respect, their needs are met, and they emerge from family law conflict feeling empowered and whole. Ms. Mickelson represents her clients and their complex financial estates and sensitive family matters with the utmost discretion and confidentiality. From business owners and professional athletes to entertainment executives and influential rain makers, Ms. Mickelson's clients come to her for her reputation among colleagues and judges as prepared, responsive, and attentive to the smallest of details, and for her no-nonsense approach to the practice of family law. Ms. Mickelson treats every case as an opportunity to educate her clients and promote financial and emotional dignity.Emotional Navigation in Family Law (00:04:05)Career Progression and Loyalty (00:06:55)Mentoring Younger Attorneys (00:08:01)Setting Realistic Client Expectations (00:11:29)Importance of Listening (00:15:53)Post-Divorce Client Relationships (00:16:39)Maintaining Work-Life Balance (00:20:23)Leadership in a Law Firm (00:24:10)Letting Go of Ego (00:24:46)The Role of Management in Law (00:26:40)Finding Joy in Law (00:27:12)Feeling Overwhelmed in Law (00:28:34)Creating Boundaries (00:30:01)Career Redirection (00:32:00)Options for Career Change (00:32:53)Future of Legal Practice (00:36:32)Would you like to learn more about Breaking Free or order your copy? https://www.garymiles.net/break-free Would you like to schedule a complimentary discovery call? You can do so here: https://calendly.com/garymiles-successcoach/one-one-discovery-call

This episode is available in audio format on our Let's Talk Loyalty podcast and in video format on www.Loyalty.TV.In this episode Bill Hanifin, CEO Wise Marketer Group, speaks with recognized industry figure Deepak Pradhan, Head of Loyalty Program & CRM at ADNOC Distribution.This conversation will share a vision for the future of convenience and fuel retailing and will surely create “store envy” among many retailers. The state of the art at ADNOC is incredible.Listen as we dig into how ADNOC is innovating in customer loyalty in this new retail model.The episode is sponsored by Comarch.Show Notes:- 1) Deepak Pradhan2)ADNOC Distribution

Marketers are often held back by fragmented data and misaligned metrics. In this episode of The Marketing Intelligence Show by Supermetrics, leaders from HubSpot, Ascott, and Omnicom share how they're building centralized data strategies to overcome these challenges — boosting efficiency, clarity, and impact across their teams.Kat Warboys, Senior Director APAC Marketing, HubspotTan Gan Hup, Vice President Marketing, Loyalty & Partnerships, The Ascott LimitedHayley Monteiro, Head of Media Implementation, Omnicom Media Group AustraliaListen now to discover how they're connecting the dots between data and results.

Josh Dawsey joins to discuss 2024: How Donald Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America, digging into Kamala Harris's campaign missteps, Biden's loyalty hangups, and Hunter's oversized influence.  In the Spiel, a statistical deep dive tests whether so-called “100-year floods” are actually happening more often as seems to be the case. Spoiler: the data is murkier than the headlines suggest, and the NOAA interface could use a century's worth of upgrades. Produced by Corey Wara Production Coordinator Ashley Khan Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠GIST INSTAGRAM⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow The Gist List at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Pesca⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack  

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

Leslie Zinn, CEO of Arden’s Garden, shares insights from her journey growing a family business into a beloved wellness brand. She discusses the tension between her mother Arden's unwavering commitment to health and the practical demands of running a profitable enterprise. Leslie highlights pivotal moments, such as navigating the industry's E. coli crisis and unintentionally establishing successful stores in food deserts. Her reflections reveal the powerful impact of mission-driven decisions, customer loyalty, and the growth mindset that sustains their business today. Key Takeaways Leslie’s early experiences balancing her mother's passion for wellness with business profitability. How Arden’s Garden navigated critical decisions during industry-wide health scares without compromising their core values. Unplanned strategic moves into underserved communities that led to surprising success and deep community impact. Resources Mentioned Visit Arden's Garden at https://www.ardensgarden.com Follow Leslie Zinn on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/lesliezinn Follow Arden’s Garden on social media at: Facebook: https://facebook.com/ardensgardenatl Instagram: https://instagram.com/ardensgardenatl Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/ardensgardenatl Join the ConversationThe Steward Chair is about equipping and inspiring business leaders to build organizations that stand the test of time. If this episode resonated with you, share your biggest takeaway and tag us on LinkedIn: Chat With Leaders Media https://www.linkedin.com/company/chatwithleaders/ End of the Line Productions https://www.linkedin.com/company/end-of-the-line-productions/. Elevate your podcast, company meeting, or industry event strategies to better engage stakeholders and drive meaningful growth! Visit ChatWithLeaders.com to learn more about how we can help.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Father Knows Something! Real People. Real Stories. Real Dad advice with a dash of ADHD, and maybe a couple of millennials chiming in from time to time to add their takes. This week's episode has Dad and Justin responding to stories that call loyalty to family or loved ones in to question. Like what do you do when your MIL get's a dog shortly after you and names it the same name as a puppy you just got? Or how do you navigate who walks you down the aisle when your mom gets upset? We have some complex family drama that we need your advice on too! Submit your write-in ! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://forms.gle/8G2e4ockyZLNoiuX7⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Bonus Stories on Patreon: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/fatherknows⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ !! Our P.O. Box: Father Knows Something. 5042 Wilshire BLVD. #470. Los Angeles, CA. 90036Follow up on Instagram @ Father Knows Something UPDATE US!! If your story has been read respond here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://forms.gle/6CP9KoWvJ4NMKewa7⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Video version available on YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube.com/fatherknowssomething⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Be sure to subscribe and tell us what you would give for advice! Index: 00:00 -- Start Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this first half of our two-part deep dive into chapters 17–21 of Crown of Midnight by Sarah J. Maas, we explore the unraveling power dynamics between Celaena, Chaol, and Dorian as personal and political boundaries begin to blur. Through our dual literary lens approach and 13 years of combined academic training, we examine how metaphors, foreshadowing, symbolism, plot devices, and imagery reveal the growing cracks in each character's path. This week, we ask:"We see Chaol struggle with his honor and Celaena struggle with her destiny. Can the two of them even have a successful relationship when they are driven/haunted by different things?" Join us as we analyze: – The complicated dance between Celaena and Chaol—both literal and metaphorical – The foreshadowing hidden in Dorian's growing powers and Nehemia's cryptic knowledge – Symbolic imagery from Celaena's dreams and her solitary mourning – The weight of past trauma, shifting loyalty, and what “home” really means to a girl who has lost everything With a mix of academic rigor and emotional insight, we unpack the tension, heartbreak, and red flags that define this turning point in the novel, and the Massverse. Spoilers ahead for Throne of Glass, Crown of Midnight, and Heir of Fire. All other spoilers will be contained to the Breadcrumbs & Broomsticks section at the end of the episode. This is Part 1 of Episode 4. Join us Thursday for Part 2 as we continue unraveling the emotional and political threads of Crown of Midnight. Sponsor: Stop putting off those doctor's appointments and use ZocDoc. Go to Zocdoc.com/BOOKTALK to find and instantly book a top-rated doctor today. Share your thoughts for a chance to be featured! Submit them at ⁠booktalkforbooktok.com⁠ for a future mini-episode or exclusive Patreon discussion. Support the Show: Patreon: ⁠patreon.com/booktalkforbooktok⁠ Merch: ⁠Etsy Store⁠ Follow Us on Social: Instagram: @BookTalkForBookTok TikTok: @BookTalkForBookTok YouTube: @BookTalkForBookTok Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hosts Alex Kirshner, Ben Lindbergh, and Lindsay Gibbs break down an unexpectedly quiet start to NBA free agency while big trade rumors keep swirling. They dig into fresh betting scandals rattling baseball and basketball, including Guardians pitcher Luis Ortiz. And they debate whether the WNBA's ambitious expansion plans are moving too fast for the league's own good. Plus, Alex has an Afterball about the remarkable mismanagement of the Washington Nationals. On the bonus episode available exclusively for Slate Plus members, the panel talks F1 domination on the track and on the screen. NBA Free Agency (3:19): Could LeBron move on at age 40? Sports Betting (20:07): Did Luis Ortiz engage in micro betting? WNBA Expansion (39:10): Too fast, too soon? Afterballs (57:26): The Nats fired their GM days before the MLB Draft. (Note: time codes are only accurate for Slate Plus members, who listen ad-free.) Get more Hang Up and Listen with Slate Plus! Join for weekly bonus episodes of Hang Up and Listen and ad-free listening on all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe from the Hang Up and Listen show page on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or visit slate.com/hangupplus for access wherever you listen. You can email us at hangup@slate.com. Podcast production and editing by Kevin Bendis, with production assistance from Patrick Fort. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hosts Alex Kirshner, Ben Lindbergh, and Lindsay Gibbs break down an unexpectedly quiet start to NBA free agency while big trade rumors keep swirling. They dig into fresh betting scandals rattling baseball and basketball, including Guardians pitcher Luis Ortiz. And they debate whether the WNBA's ambitious expansion plans are moving too fast for the league's own good. Plus, Alex has an Afterball about the remarkable mismanagement of the Washington Nationals. On the bonus episode available exclusively for Slate Plus members, the panel talks F1 domination on the track and on the screen. NBA Free Agency (3:19): Could LeBron move on at age 40? Sports Betting (20:07): Did Luis Ortiz engage in micro betting? WNBA Expansion (39:10): Too fast, too soon? Afterballs (57:26): The Nats fired their GM days before the MLB Draft. (Note: time codes are only accurate for Slate Plus members, who listen ad-free.) Get more Hang Up and Listen with Slate Plus! Join for weekly bonus episodes of Hang Up and Listen and ad-free listening on all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe from the Hang Up and Listen show page on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or visit slate.com/hangupplus for access wherever you listen. You can email us at hangup@slate.com. Podcast production and editing by Kevin Bendis, with production assistance from Patrick Fort. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hosts Alex Kirshner, Ben Lindbergh, and Lindsay Gibbs break down an unexpectedly quiet start to NBA free agency while big trade rumors keep swirling. They dig into fresh betting scandals rattling baseball and basketball, including Guardians pitcher Luis Ortiz. And they debate whether the WNBA's ambitious expansion plans are moving too fast for the league's own good. Plus, Alex has an Afterball about the remarkable mismanagement of the Washington Nationals. On the bonus episode available exclusively for Slate Plus members, the panel talks F1 domination on the track and on the screen. NBA Free Agency (3:19): Could LeBron move on at age 40? Sports Betting (20:07): Did Luis Ortiz engage in micro betting? WNBA Expansion (39:10): Too fast, too soon? Afterballs (57:26): The Nats fired their GM days before the MLB Draft. (Note: time codes are only accurate for Slate Plus members, who listen ad-free.) Get more Hang Up and Listen with Slate Plus! Join for weekly bonus episodes of Hang Up and Listen and ad-free listening on all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe from the Hang Up and Listen show page on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or visit slate.com/hangupplus for access wherever you listen. You can email us at hangup@slate.com. Podcast production and editing by Kevin Bendis, with production assistance from Patrick Fort. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices