Podcasts about Marriage Act

[This blog will always be free to read, but it's also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: cmclymer@gmail.com. And if this is too big of a commitment, I'm always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]On Friday, the Supreme Court, in a private conference, will consider whether to take up a challenge to Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States. The great Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog contextualizes for us:As a general practice, the court does not grant review without considering a case at at least two consecutive conferences; this is the first conference in which Davis' challenge will be considered. If the justices deny review, however, that announcement could come as soon as Monday, Nov. 10.I would be lying if I said I'm not pessimistic about this. I believe the Court will grant review, and they will eventually overturn Obergefell. I don't think the votes are there to stop it. I hope I'm wrong. If the Court does decline review in the coming weeks, I will be relieved and celebrating. But I don't think I'm wrong.It will be a tragic setback for LGBTQ rights—both here and globally—but fortunately, due to the leadership and foresight of Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and President Biden, the damage of that eventual overturning will be significantly mitigated.Back in 2022, Senator Baldwin cobbled together a bipartisan majority in the Senate—which included twelve of her Republican colleagues—to overcome the filibuster and pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which was then signed by President Biden.Among other things, it provided federally-enforced reciprocity between the states on the validity of same-sex marriage licenses. Basically, if and when Obergefell is overturned, the Respect for Marriage Act guarantees that marriage licenses issued in states where it's legal are still valid in states where issuing them would be illegal.So, if I get married to another woman in Massachusetts, that marriage license would still be valid in, say, my home state of Texas, where it would be illegal to issue them when Obergefell is overturned.Obviously, this is a very imperfect protection because many same-sex couples living in states where it would be illegal to get married can't afford to travel to a state where it would be legal. Imagine, alone, the implications of that in a medical emergency. Or in having parental rights. Not great.Regardless, it's a crucial backstop that will protect millions of LGBTQ families in our country, and I'm deeply grateful to Senator Baldwin and President Biden for getting it across the finish line. It's hard to believe there were twelve Republican senators who went along with it just three years ago.We're in this sad situation—on the precipice of witnessing one of the most important advances in LGBTQ rights dissolved—because of Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses in the wake of the Obergefell ruling.A lawsuit was filed against her by same-sex couples who were denied, which she lost in district court and eventually at the Supreme Court, and after she continued refusing to issue licenses, she was jailed for contempt.Following her release from jail after five days and a promise not to interfere with the work of her deputy clerks, Ms. Davis had alternate forms created which removed her name and she refused to add her signature to marriage licenses. Although the legality of these licenses were recognized by the state, some wondered if they could still be challenged in other contexts (out-of-state) for lack of a clerk's signature.There's an entanglement of lawsuits here I won't get into, but the most germane here is that a same-sex couple—David Ermold and David Moore—originally denied a license by Ms. Davis sued her to recoup their legal fees, which was eventually upheld in federal court and ordered to be paid by the State of Kentucky. But the state refused to pay them and said that burden should fall on Ms. Davis. Mr. Ermold and Mr. Moore also sued Ms. Davis for $100k in emotional damages, and a jury found in their favor in 2023.So, that's why we're here and wondering if Obergefell will be overturned. Because in order for that to happen, someone would have to convince the Supreme Court that an unconstitutional burden has been placed on them by the legalization of same-sex marriages.But there'd be no constitutional burden if Ms. Davis had carried out her duties as a county clerk because same-sex marriages don't place a burden on anyone outside of those marriages.We're in this incredibly frustrating situation because Ms. Davis can lay claim to being the only person in America whom can, in theory, assert that she's been burdened by Obergefell because of the legal fees she's been ordered to pay (along with the jail time, emotional burden, etc).All of this even though Ms. Davis brought it upon herself by neglecting her oath as a county clerk in favor of her religious views despite swearing to uphold the laws in a country guided by a constitution that guarantees freedom from religion. She used her public office to force others to abide by her religious views and she got heavily penalized for it, and thus, she has a (ridiculous) argument for legal standing because of damages she incurred. Ms. Davis has a curious relationship with her faith. As a Christian myself, I recognize all of us who follow Christ are vastly imperfect, but Ms. Davis is particularly dubious when it comes to Christ's teachings.She's been divorced three times. Her second failed marriage included an affair she had with the man who would become her third husband and the father of twins she birthed during that second failed marriage. She later divorced that third husband and remarried the second one. Four marriages, three divorces.I'm not here to judge Ms. Davis for her track record on shattered nuptials and broken commitments before God. That's not my place, and it never will be. I have always maintained that whatever consenting adults want to do is none of my business. People should have sex with whom they want and marry whom they want and divorce whom they want, and at no point should my opinion on any of that be taken into consideration, let alone be the basis for any law. My religious views are for my personal life alone, and I should mind my own business.Ms. Davis does not feel that way. She dismisses critics who point out her own imperfect journey, claiming her sins have been washed away by God's salvation, liberating her to stand in punitive judgment of anyone she believes to be imperfect in the eyes of God. I do not believe this is because Ms. Davis has an enduring faith in God. Quite the opposite. Her actions reflect a deep insecurity over her own faith and a relentless need to have her religious views validated by everyone around her in order to assuage that insecurity. Kim Davis is the kind of Christian whom requires the irritation of her doubts to be calamine'd not by the perfect love and understanding of God but by the unyielding resignation of strangers' personal lives to her religious purity, and while she does so, her own religious impurity should be met only with endless grace.Grace for me but not for thee.Ms. Davis is not someone with strong faith, but moreover, she is clearly not a happy person, and it is somehow the obligation of everyone else to sacrifice themselves for her spiritual validation and personal happiness. I genuinely feel bad for her. I can't imagine spending my life in the constant pursuit of ensuring every other adult is miserable so that my wobbly faith can be duck-taped together with the unnecessary pain of strangers. I pray she finds peace somewhere because it's abundantly clear she's not seeking it from God.Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Charlotte's Web Thoughts at charlotteclymer.substack.com/subscribe

During the current session of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), the justices may hear a case that could overturn Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the landmark ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. If SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, it will re-surface the question of whether marriage equality should remain federally protected. Additionally, multiple states are engaged in a political strategy to fully challenge, or at least narrow, marriage equality in the United States. Understandably, these efforts pose serious concerns for same-sex couples and their allies.  Join Jeffrey Bellomo as he offers his thoughts on the likelihood that SCOTUS will hear the case (i.e., grant certiorari or grant cert), why a sweeping reversal of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) is doubtful, what a narrow religious carve-out might look like, and how today's federal laws protect same-sex married couples. You'll also learn why it's important to “get your documents in order” to secure legal protections for your family, regardless of SCOTUS intervention. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW (00:00) Episode introduction: Marriage Equality    (02:00) Free educational workshops (03:02) Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Loving v. Virginia (1967), and the Respect for Marriage Act (2022) (04:19) Proponents of marriage equality are concerned      (05:20) Will the U.S. Supreme Court grant certiorari (i.e., hear a new case)?  (08:37) Instead of a full reversal, a carve-out could create an exception based on religious liberty  (13:11) PA's inheritance tax rate differs greatly depending on whether a couple is legally married (14:30) Having financial, medical, and other documents in place can protect you and your family (18:36) Planning is essential for same-sex couples (24:30) Same-sex marriages are treated like any other legal marriage in our workshops      ABOUT BELLOMO & ASSOCIATES Jeffrey R. Bellomo, the founder of Bellomo & Associates, is a licensed and certified elder law attorney with a master's degree in taxation and a certificate in estate planning. He explains complex legal and financial topics in easy-to-understand language. Bellomo & Associates is committed to providing education so that what happened to the Bellomo family doesn't happen to your family. We conduct free workshops on estate planning, crisis planning, Medicaid planning, special needs planning, probate administration, and trust administration. Visit our website (https://bellomoassociates.com/) to learn more.   LINKS AND RESOURCES MENTIONED Bellomo & Associates workshops:https://bellomoassociates.com/workshops/ Life Care Planning The Three Secrets of Estate Planning Nuts & Bolts of Medicaid For more information, call us at (717) 845-5390. Connect with Bellomo & Associates on Social Media Tune in Saturdays at 7:30 a.m. Eastern to WSBA radio: https://www.newstalkwsba.com/ X (formerlyTwitter):https://twitter.com/bellomoassoc YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/BellomoAssociates Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/bellomoassociates Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/bellomoassociates/ LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/bellomoandassociates WAYS TO WORK WITH JEFFREY BELLOMO Contact Us:https://bellomoassociates.com/contact/ Practice areas:https://bellomoassociates.com/practice-areas/    

In a climate where diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) professionals are facing unprecedented challenges, how can leaders continue to build spaces of belonging? This exclusive mini-series, Navigating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion's New Reality, inspired by a toolkit originally for Fortune 100 leaders, is your roadmap! Host and creator of the Imagine Belonging Podcast, Rhodes Perry, a nationally recognized belonging culture thought leader, offers the essential guidance you need to navigate the shifting landscape of legal challenges, evolving rhetoric, and evolving workforce strategies. This introductory episode sets the stage, exploring the historical roots of diversity, equity, and inclusion and why its foundational values are more critical than ever. We'll dive into the laws that shaped this field, from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the Respect for Marriage Act, and reveal how this work helps everyone—immigrants, people of color, women, LGBTQIA+ individuals, people with disabilities, Veterans, and others—get a fair shot. You'll gain practical strategies to: Center the business relevance of your culture building work Stay informed on key legal and policy shifts in this dynamic landscape Monitor public discourse without making uninformed statements Avoid the temptation of working in isolation This mini-series will equip you with the courage, courage, and commitment to become the leader you've been waiting for - the kind of leader our world deserves, especially now.     Links & Resources:  

This week the Senate passed H.R. 8404, the “Respect for Marriage Act.” Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) Committee for Religious Liberty, and Bishop Robert Barron of Winona-Rochester, chairman of the USCCB's Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life, and Youth, issued a joint letter and analysis urging Congress to oppose the measure. Read the press release. The USCCB Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs issued a statement emphasizing its recommitment to relationship with the Jewish committee. Read the press release. Pope Francis reminded the faithful that the Lord is always present and to look for signs of God's nearness this Advent. Watch the video.

Family, this week on Queer News Anna DeShawn continues to bring you the stories that matter most to our community. In politics, we celebrate Massachusetts' Shield Act 2.0 expanding protections for abortion and gender-affirming care, while keeping a close eye on a Supreme Court case threatening marriage equality. In culture and entertainment, a Black lesbian couple survives a racially charged roadside attack in Virginia, UCLA stands firm against the Trump administration amidst pressure to roll back trans rights, and fashion legend Rick Owens launches an OnlyFans page with proceeds supporting a trans shelter in France. Let's get into it.  Want to support this podcast?

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

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Send us a textThe Senate faces a critical juncture as Republicans scramble to salvage President Trump's signature tax legislation after a devastating parliamentary setback. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth McDowell has rejected a key provision that would have capped healthcare provider taxes, eliminating approximately $250 billion in planned Medicaid spending cuts meant to offset permanent corporate tax reductions.Senate Majority Leader John Thune insists they have backup plans, but several Republican senators including Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Josh Hawley had already expressed grave concerns about the potential impact on rural hospitals. The deadline pressure intensifies as President Trump publicly demands lawmakers skip their July 4th recess to complete the legislation, though many senators remain skeptical about staying in Washington without a clear timeline.Beyond domestic policy struggles, the episode delves into growing tensions between the Trump administration and media outlets over reporting on recent strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth and other officials have launched unusually personal attacks against reporters from both CNN and Fox News who questioned the administration's claims about completely "obliterating" Iran's nuclear capabilities.The show also examines the fragile state of LGBTQ rights ten years after the landmark Obergefell decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Despite record public approval, calls from conservative states and Supreme Court justices to reconsider the ruling have advocates concerned about its future, though the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act provides some protection against potential reversals.What emerges is a portrait of Washington's deep partisan divides and the complex interplay between political ambitions, parliamentary procedures, and constitutional rights that continues to shape America's most consequential policy debates. Subscribe now to stay informed about these critical developments and what they mean for our shared future. Support the show

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

AJ Helman (they/them/theirs) is an educator and artist with a focus on Jewish and LGBTQ+ theater and education. After graduating from Emerson College with a BFA in Theater Education and Performance, AJ remained in Boston, working in the local theater and film industries as both an artist and a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion liaison. As part of their activism and educator work, they facilitated workshops on gender diversity in theater and spearheaded better inclusion practices for transgender employees in the film industry thanks to the support of Ryan Reynolds' and Blake Lively's Group Effort Initiative. AJ proudly marched with Keshet at San Francisco Pride directly following the Supreme Court's overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act, effectively making LGBTQ+ marriage in the United States legal. In addition to their activism and artistry, AJ is thrilled to be a part of the Temple Emanuel staff as the Ritual Coordinator.

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

This Day in Legal History:  Same-Sex Marriage Legalized in IrelandOn May 23, 2015, Ireland became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage through a popular vote, marking a historic shift in both national and global legal landscapes. The referendum asked voters whether the Constitution should be amended to allow marriage regardless of sex, and the result was a resounding “Yes,” with 62% in favor and 38% opposed. The voter turnout was unusually high at over 60%, signaling widespread public engagement with the issue. This legal development followed years of advocacy and social change in Ireland, a country long associated with conservative Catholic values.The result amended Ireland's Constitution to state that “marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” This provision was later codified in the Marriage Act 2015, which came into effect in November of that year. The outcome of the vote represented not only a victory for LGBTQ+ rights but also a transformation in how Irish law and society conceptualize equality and family. It also had ripple effects internationally, inspiring similar movements in countries where same-sex marriage remained a contentious issue.Ireland's use of a constitutional referendum to secure marriage equality was unique and drew attention to the power of democratic processes to drive progressive legal change. It stood in contrast to other jurisdictions where marriage equality had been achieved through legislative action or court rulings. The campaign leading up to the vote featured stories of Irish citizens returning home from abroad just to cast their ballots, illustrating the emotional and civic weight of the moment. Major political parties and civic institutions publicly supported the amendment, a notable shift from past positions. Religious groups, while not uniformly opposed, largely cautioned against the change, yet the vote revealed a generational and cultural divide within Irish society.Ireland's decision on May 23, 2015, not only redefined marriage in its legal code but also signaled to the world a powerful statement about inclusivity, human rights, and democratic voice.The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case involving President Trump's firing of two federal labor board members, offering reassurance that the decision does not extend to the Federal Reserve's leadership. The Court allowed Trump to keep the dismissed board members—Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board—off the job while they challenge their terminations. However, the justices emphasized that the Federal Reserve is a "uniquely structured" entity, distinct from other federal agencies, and rooted in a special historical context.This distinction has calmed concerns that Trump might use these cases to justify firing Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whom he has criticized for not cutting interest rates. Powell, appointed by Trump and later renominated by President Joe Biden, is legally protected from dismissal except for cause, as stated in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Analysts welcomed the Court's reassurance, interpreting it as a safeguard for the Fed's independence.Nevertheless, some experts cautioned that the ruling isn't a definitive protection for the Fed but does limit broader implications from the labor board cases. Powell's term expires in May 2026, and Trump is expected to name a successor.US Supreme Court says Fed is unique, easing worries over Trump's ability to fire Powell | ReutersU.S. District Judge Susan Illston extended a block on mass layoffs planned by the Trump administration, ruling that significant restructuring of federal agencies requires congressional approval. This decision hampers President Trump's efforts to downsize or eliminate parts of the federal workforce, a central component of his broader government overhaul strategy.The ruling continues a temporary restraining order from earlier this month, which prevented around 20 agencies from carrying out large-scale layoffs and required reinstatement of those already dismissed. Illston's updated order refines the earlier ruling but maintains its core restrictions. The Trump administration had sought Supreme Court intervention, arguing the judge overstepped constitutional boundaries related to executive authority, but that effort may now be moot.Government attorney Andrew Bernie contended that Trump's executive order only asked agencies to explore potential cuts, without mandating immediate layoffs. However, plaintiffs argued that the administration's directives clearly pressured agencies to prepare for deep personnel cuts. These include proposed reductions of 80,000 jobs at Veterans Affairs and 10,000 at Health and Human Services.More than 260,000 federal employees are expected to leave their roles by September, many through buyouts. Lawsuits challenging these cuts are pending, making this ruling the most comprehensive legal obstacle so far to Trump's plans.US judge blocks Trump's mass layoffs in blow to government overhaul | ReutersEarlier this month, Ukraine's parliament ratified a landmark agreement with the United States: a legal, financial, and strategic framework that gives America preferential access to Ukraine's critical minerals and hydrocarbons — all while laying the foundation for a Reconstruction Investment Fund designed to rebuild Ukraine's decimated infrastructure. Sounds noble, sure, but let's not mistake realism for altruism.This deal is as much about strategic leverage as it is about digging rocks out of the ground.The agreement covers 55 minerals — everything from lithium and cobalt to uranium, titanium, and rare earths — plus oil and gas. The U.S. gains front-of-the-line privileges via a new limited partnership co-managed by the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and Ukraine's PPP Agency.Ukraine contributes its share in the form of rights to 50% of future revenues from new or dormant (but not-yet-exploited) resource licenses. Meanwhile, the U.S. counts military aid as its capital input.But it's not just about extraction. This partnership comes with first rights to co-invest, first rights to offtake agreements, and most-favored-nation status for investment terms — all locked into Ukrainian law.And if those terms change, the agreement explicitly overrides Ukrainian legislation. That's not just economic partnership; that's policy primacy.If you're an American investor, welcome to your new favorite offshore zone. The fund's income is entirely exempt from Ukrainian taxation: no duties, no levies, no withholdings. The U.S., in return, “expects” not to slap tariffs under Section 232 or IEEPA. Taken as a whole, it's a foreign investment platform with the tax treatment of a charity and the legal immunities of a diplomatic mission.The deal even covers currency risk. Ukraine must guarantee free convertibility of hryvnia into dollars and indemnify U.S. partners if transfers are delayed or blocked. Even during martial law, capital flows to the fund are protected by contract.Any new licensee in Ukraine's resource sector is required — not asked — to make investment information available to the fund when raising capital. The fund then gets the right to participate on equal or better terms. On top of that, Ukraine is barred from offering more favorable terms to anyone else. And yes, this includes offtake agreements — the U.S. or its designees get the first crack.In short, Ukraine can't sign a better minerals deal with the EU, China, or any other party unless the U.S. gets offered those same terms. Call it diplomacy with a non-compete clause.The framework focuses on new or idle licenses — but existing ones remain a grey zone. Ukraine would need new legislation to bring those under the fund's umbrella, and many current PSA holders have legislative stability guarantees that would make retroactive changes nearly impossible. Unless these assets are re-tendered or voluntarily integrated, they risk becoming an unaligned economic orbit, limiting the fund's reach.Here's the mineral-sized asterisk: this won't generate revenue tomorrow. Rare earth mines can take 10 to 20 years and $2 billion each to become operational. Many Ukrainian deposits remain unmapped, some are under occupation, and wartime damage to infrastructure makes transport and processing a logistical fantasy.While the agreement doesn't spell out a formal role for U.S. companies, it's not hard to guess the playbook: preferential licensing, co-investment with the fund, and possibly DFC-backed bonds aimed at U.S. institutional investors. Ukraine has openly stated its expectation that the fund will “look for investors” — and you can bet the Pentagon-adjacent venture funds are already circling like vultures.The Reconstruction Investment Fund is less about rebuilding Ukraine and more about anchoring it economically to the West. It creates a structured, American-led investment regime that rewards alignment, punishes deviation, and ensures U.S. interests are literally embedded in Ukraine's subsoil.Is this a win-win? Potentially. Ukraine gets capital, infrastructure, and a postwar economic vision. The U.S. gets mineral security, geopolitical leverage, and a new model for development diplomacy in conflict zones.But don't mistake this for benevolence. This is not a Marshall Plan — it's a minerals plan with a spreadsheet and a strategy memo. And the terms are clear: the rocks are Ukrainian, but the steering wheel? American.Breaking ground: U.S.-Ukraine mineral deal ratified in Ukraine, paving the way for reconstruction | ReutersGustav Holst, born in 1874 in England, was a composer whose music bridged the Romantic and modern eras with a uniquely English voice. Best known for his orchestral suite The Planets, Holst also made lasting contributions to wind band literature, a genre he approached with both seriousness and innovation. Among his most celebrated works in this realm is the Second Suite in F for Military Band, Op. 28, No. 2, composed in 1911. Unlike many composers of the time who treated band music as secondary, Holst infused his suite with depth, structure, and folkloric authenticity.The first movement of the suite, March: Allegro, opens with a vibrant and engaging theme based on the Somerset folk tune “Morris Dance.” Holst immediately establishes a sense of forward momentum and bright sonority that captures the distinct color of a military band. This is soon followed by a more lyrical trio section, featuring the melody “Swansea Town,” which provides a warm contrast before the return of the energetic march. The entire movement showcases Holst's gift for counterpoint, clever orchestration, and thematic development, all while remaining accessible and rhythmically compelling.As this week's closing theme, Holst's March: Allegro from the Second Suite offers a rousing, optimistic send-off. It's a reminder of the power of wind ensembles to convey both complexity and joy—and of Holst's enduring legacy in shaping modern band repertoire. The movement reflects not only his compositional brilliance but also his respect for English folk traditions, seamlessly translated into a format meant for public performance and communal appreciation.Without further ado, Gustav Holst's Second Suite in F for Military Band, Op. 28, No.2 – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: ⁠https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

Two years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic invokes an old Marriage Act to improve relations between Muggle-borns and pure-bloods.Originally posted as a written work on AO3: https://archiveofourown.org/works/34600720

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comEvan is an attorney and gay rights pioneer. He founded and led Freedom to Marry — the campaign to win marriage until victory at the Supreme Court in 2015, after which he then wound down the organization. During those days he wrote the book Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry. Today he “advises and assists diverse organizations, movements, and countries in adapting the lessons on how to win to other important causes.” We became friends in the 90s as we jointly campaigned for what was then a highly unpopular idea.For two clips of our convo — on the early, fierce resistance to gay marriage by gay activists, and the “tectonic” breakthrough in Hawaii — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised in Pittsburgh by a pediatrician and a social worker; being a natural leader in high school; his awakening as a gay kid; the huge influence of John Boswell on both of us; working at Lambda Legal; Peace Corps in West Africa; a prosecutor in Brooklyn; the AIDS crisis; coalition building; engaging hostile critics; Peter Tatchell; lesbian support over kids; the ACLU's Dan Foley; Judge Chang in Hawaii; Clinton and DOMA; Bush and the Federal Marriage Amendment; the federalist approach and Barney Frank; Prop 8; the LDS self-correcting on gays; the huge swing in public support; Obama not endorsing marriage in 2008; Obergefell and Kennedy's dignitas; Trump removing the GOP's anti-marriage plank; Bostock; dissent demonized within the gay community; the Respect for Marriage Act; and Evan and me debating the transqueer backlash.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Claire Lehmann on the success of Quillette, Francis Collins on faith and science and Covid, Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee on Covid's political fallout, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Today, we're diving into a big question: Is marriage equality in peril? Spoiler alert: it's a bit of a rollercoaster, but we've got Evan Wolfson on the mic, and he's here to break it all down. Evan's not just any guest; he's a legend in the fight for marriage equality, and he's got the inside scoop on what's at stake for the LGBTQ community right now. We chat about the progress we've made, the challenges that lie ahead, and how important it is to stay engaged and hopeful. So, grab your favorite drink, kick back, and let's get into this important convo that's all about love, rights, and a brighter future!In the latest episode of Where Do Gays Retire?, we take a compelling look at the intersection of LGBTQ rights and the pressing question of marriage equality. Our host Mark Goldstein sits down with none other than Evan Wolfson, a pioneer in the marriage equality movement. As they navigate through the current political landscape, it becomes clear that while we've made significant strides, there are still shadows lurking. Wolfson reflects on his early days as an activist and the fierce battles fought to secure the rights we have today. He doesn't shy away from discussing the challenges that lie ahead, especially in light of recent threats to these hard-won liberties. Listeners will find themselves armed with knowledge about the historical context of marriage rights, the significance of the Obergefell decision, and the urgent need for continued activism. This episode serves as a rallying cry for the community, encouraging everyone to stay engaged and hopeful as we continue to fight for equality and safety in our retirement years. Mark and Evan remind us that the power of love and commitment is resilient, and together, we can create a future where everyone can retire with dignity and joy.Takeaways: Evan Wolfson's journey in advocating for marriage equality spans over three decades, starting from his law school thesis in 1983. The 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision marked a historic victory, legalizing same-sex marriage across the U.S. and changing countless lives. Wolfson emphasizes that while the fight for equality continues, there are solid protections in place, like the Respect for Marriage Act. Engagement and activism are crucial; we can't just sit back and hope for progress, we must actively participate. The LGBTQ+ community has made incredible strides, now 39 countries recognize marriage equality, showcasing the power of perseverance. Wolfson encourages everyone to stay hopeful and engaged, as collective action can lead to significant change over time. Links referenced in this episode:wheredogaysretire.comfreedomtomarry.orgCompanies mentioned in this episode: Freedom to Marry Lambda Legal GLAD ACLU National Center for Lesbian Rights Stand Up America Indivisible Protect America

Today, we're diving into a big question: Is marriage equality in peril? Spoiler alert: it's a bit of a rollercoaster, but we've got Evan Wolfson on the mic, and he's here to break it all down. Evan's not just any guest; he's a legend in the fight for marriage equality, and he's got the inside scoop on what's at stake for the LGBTQ community right now. We chat about the progress we've made, the challenges that lie ahead, and how important it is to stay engaged and hopeful. So, grab your favorite drink, kick back, and let's get into this important convo that's all about love, rights, and a brighter future!In the latest episode of Where Do Gays Retire?, we take a compelling look at the intersection of LGBTQ rights and the pressing question of marriage equality. Our host Mark Goldstein sits down with none other than Evan Wolfson, a pioneer in the marriage equality movement. As they navigate through the current political landscape, it becomes clear that while we've made significant strides, there are still shadows lurking. Wolfson reflects on his early days as an activist and the fierce battles fought to secure the rights we have today. He doesn't shy away from discussing the challenges that lie ahead, especially in light of recent threats to these hard-won liberties. Listeners will find themselves armed with knowledge about the historical context of marriage rights, the significance of the Obergefell decision, and the urgent need for continued activism. This episode serves as a rallying cry for the community, encouraging everyone to stay engaged and hopeful as we continue to fight for equality and safety in our retirement years. Mark and Evan remind us that the power of love and commitment is resilient, and together, we can create a future where everyone can retire with dignity and joy.Takeaways: Evan Wolfson's journey in advocating for marriage equality spans over three decades, starting from his law school thesis in 1983. The 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision marked a historic victory, legalizing same-sex marriage across the U.S. and changing countless lives. Wolfson emphasizes that while the fight for equality continues, there are solid protections in place, like the Respect for Marriage Act. Engagement and activism are crucial; we can't just sit back and hope for progress, we must actively participate. The LGBTQ+ community has made incredible strides, now 39 countries recognize marriage equality, showcasing the power of perseverance. Wolfson encourages everyone to stay hopeful and engaged, as collective action can lead to significant change over time. Links referenced in this episode:wheredogaysretire.comfreedomtomarry.orgCompanies mentioned in this episode: Freedom to Marry Lambda Legal GLAD ACLU National Center for Lesbian Rights Stand Up America Indivisible Protect America

In this episode of The Mona Charen Podcast, Mona Charen speaks with author Jonathan Rauch about his new book, Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy. They explore the decline of Christianity in America, its impact on democracy, and whether faith can be depoliticized. Rauch, a self-described “atheistic homosexual Jew,” makes the case that Christianity has been a vital “load-bearing wall” for American democracy and argues for a return to its core principles. The conversation touches on political polarization, the role of faith in public life, and what small-l liberals and conservatives alike can learn from the evolving role of religion in society. REFERENCES: Books by Jonathan Rauch: Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy (his new book) The Constitution of Knowledge (his previous book) Articles: An article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic (2003) celebrating secularization, which he later called "the dumbest thing I ever wrote." Books and Works Referenced: Tim Alberta's The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory (referred to in discussion about the church and politics) A quote attributed to G.K. Chesterton: “When people cease to believe in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything” (noted as possibly apocryphal). Russell Moore's commentary on the state of the church. The Bible (including references to Jesus' teachings such as "forgive your enemies" and "the least of these"). A quote from John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The Book of Mormon (mentioned in the discussion of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Immanuel Kant's ethical philosophy (used to support moral arguments). Rabbi Hillel's summary of the Torah: “That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your neighbor. All the rest is commentary. Now go and study.” Legislation and Policies Referenced: The 1964 Civil Rights Act (mentioning its religious exemptions). The Utah Compromise (2015) on LGBT rights and religious freedoms. The Respect for Marriage Act (2022), which protected same-sex marriage while also ensuring religious protections.

The killer who stalked Los Angeles gay bars in the early 80s slipped away twice (for reasons explained by Deputy D.A. Dino Fulgoni), but investigating officer Mike Thies wouldn't give up. Years later, lesbian policy manager Madeline Brancel rediscovered the life of her gay great-uncle, who was one of the victims (Part 2 of 2, produced by David Hunt). And in NewsWrap: protections for women and the rights of queer people are among the stumbling blocks to finalizing a deal at the U.N.'s COP29 climate conference, the Parliament of Vanuatu amends its Marriage Act to bans marriage equality, a three-judge panel of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifts the barrier on implementing Indiana's ban on pediatric gender-affirming healthcare, black gay actor Jussie Smollett's 2019 conviction for staging a racist and anti-queer hate crime attack on himself is overturned on a technicality, U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson appeases South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace with a policy to restrict use of sex-segregated Capitol facilities based only on birth certificate gender, encouraging words for first-time voters from comedian Wanda Sykes, and more international LGBTQ news reported by Ava David and Michael Taylor Gray (produced by Brian DeShazor).  All this on the November 25, 2024 edition of This Way Out! Join our family of listener-donors today at http://thiswayout.org/donate/ NOTE TO RADIO STATIONS: The weekly program uploaded to SoundCloud will soon include a pitch for This Way Out/Overnight Productions (Inc.). Stations can download a pitch-free version from radio4all.net or Pacifica's AudioPort.Org. For more information, contact Brian@ThisWayOut.org.

Note: This episode was recorded on October 27, 2024, before the JD Vance interview with Joe Rogan. We're intrigued to see that many topics we discussed were also covered. Share your thoughts below!We're encouraged by a Republican Vice President candidate addressing LGBTQ+ issues, aligning with our call for organizations like Human Rights Campaign to prioritize impactful legislation like the Equality Act. This act would affect 13 million LGBTQ+ Americans, and we believe it should be the focus, rather than niche issues.In this Coffee with Gays episode, Blaine and the crew return from their summer break to tackle what truly matters in election season. They discuss online bullying

Cast:Dr. Tara Egan - hostJonathan Steele, Family Law Attorney - guest expertDomestic abuse affects countless individuals and families. The term ‘domestic abuse' encompasses a range of behaviors, including physical violence, emotional manipulation, financial control, stalking, harassment, and more. It's a complex problem. Knowing what is legal and what is not can help you see the best direction to go next. If you find yourself in a situation that falls under any of these categories, it's important to know that there are legal provisions in place to protect you in domestic relationships.Our guest expert today is Jonathan Steele. Jonathan is a seasoned family law attorney and partner at Beermann LLP in Chicago. His practice is characterized by a holistic approach that safeguards both personal and digital aspects of his clients' lives. He also exhibits a commanding knowledge of the Illinois Supreme Court rules and the Rules of Civil Procedure, plus the rules of evidence, the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, the Domestic Violence Act, and the Stalking No Contact Order Act. He's graciously given his time so our audience can learn more about how attorneys can protect clients who are victims of domestic violence.You won't want to miss this information-packed interview.To learn more about Jonathan Steele's services: https://www.beermannlaw.com/team/jonathan-d-steele/For more information about Dr. Egan's services:Website -Dr. Tara Egan's child & adolescent therapy services, books, webinars, public speaking opportunities, and counseling/consultation services, Go HERE.Facebook - learn more HERE.YouTube - learn more HERE.Instagram - learn more HERE.Edited by Christian Fox

It is important to have a lawyer assist with a separation agreement to safeguard your legal rights, including the right to honest financial disclosure from the other party. Most couples choose a no-fault divorce, which allows them to end their marriage without proving any wrongdoing. However, factors such as career choices, parenting differences, division of household labor, relationships with family and friends, finances, and health choices can still lead to conflict. According to a Forbes Advisor survey, the most significant conflicts for divorced couples were career choices (46%) and parenting differences (43%).   Jonathan D. Steele has had a successful legal career, starting at Nadler, Pritikin & Mirabelli LLC, and later moving to Beermann LLP. He has been recognized as a Rising Star by Illinois Super Lawyers magazine, an honor given to less than 2.5% of attorneys under 40 in the state. He has also been designated as an Emerging Lawyer by Leading Lawyers magazine, an accolade given to fewer than 2% of Illinois attorneys annually. This recognition underscores his expertise in family law and his exceptional professional achievement. In addition to his courtroom successes, Jonathan possesses a strong understanding of the Illinois Supreme Court rules and the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as technical proficiency in legal practice that equips him to handle complex legal challenges. His areas of expertise include advanced trial advocacy, a deep understanding of the rules of evidence, and specialized knowledge in the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, Domestic Violence Act, and the Stalking No Contact Order Act. Jonathan places a high priority on the privacy and security of his clients, integrating cutting-edge digital protection strategies to safeguard sensitive information—a critical asset in today's interconnected world. Outside the courtroom, Jonathan is committed to community service, offering pro bono legal aid through JUF Community Legal Services and contributing to medical research initiatives as a board member of the Medical Research Junior Board Foundation at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago.   Transitioning from law to cybersecurity, Jonathan has spent years researching all aspects of cybersecurity and privacy. He has become well-versed in the Sophos ecosystem, setting up MDM solutions across a fleet of iOS devices, configuring next-gen enterprise-grade Sophos XG firewalls for home use, and setting up Synology NAS solutions for self-hosting calendar solutions, surveillance systems, photo storage, and video hosting. He is proficient in ZTNA and VPN setup and configuration, end-to-end encrypted solutions, privacy-respecting software and hardware solutions, and compartmentalization strategies. His expertise also extends to multifactor authentication, setup and management of self-hosted IDP solutions, custom DNS filtering and configuration, website setup, configuration, security and management, and macOS, Windows, iOS setup and configuration to enhance security and privacy. He joined me this week to tell me more.   For more information, visit: https://www.steelefamlaw.com/

⭐⭐⭐⭐ /  

Pivotal street actions that have fueled the march toward LGBTQ liberation are included in a newly-accessible collection of This Way Out programs at americanarchive.org: Section 28 protesters converged on Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at Downing Street, a Stop AIDS Now barricade blocked the Golden Gate Bridge, and a “rice-toss” in San Francisco expressed anger over the Defense of Marriage Act. Generation Z activism has been influenced by the protest culture of the past — now on digital “streets” and across intersectional lines. Pacific Pride Foundation Community Outreach Manager Levin Fetzer talks about the struggle to remain hopeful and the importance of learning from movement predecessors. (Part Four of a four-part Pride Month series produced by Daniel Huecias.) And in NewsWrap: Namibia's High Court finds the colonial-era laws against sex between men unconstitutional, Thailand is poised to become the first Southeast Asian country to open civil marriage to same-gender couples, a federal judge allows six more U.S. states to ignore the Biden administration's Title IX protections for LGBTQ students, Black lesbian White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre offers the president's greetings for Pride Month, Kyiv Pride marches again for the first time since the Russian invasion, Pope Francis' unfortunate use of the homophobic slur “frociaggine” is the target of Rome Pride pranks, and more international LGBTQ news reported this week by David Hunt and Ava Davis (produced by Brian DeShazor).  All this on the June 24, 2024 edition of This Way Out! Join our family of listener-donors today at http://thiswayout.org/donate/

Joe Hack is a government relations specialist, political consultant, and former U.S. Senate Chief of Staff with more than 16 years on Capitol Hill.As Senior Vice President of The Daschle Group, Joe is known for his expertise in Senate politics and procedures. Notably, Joe served as a lead Republican consultant in securing passage of The Respect for Marriage Act and played a key role in shepherding The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act following the January 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol.Previously, Joe spent 12 years as a senior advisor in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, including more than six years as Chief of Staff to U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (NE).Prior to that, he worked for Senate Whip Jon Kyl as Communications Director and chief spokesman. Joe is also a veteran of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served as Press Secretary and Legislative Assistant for Rep. J. Randy Forbes (VA-04). He began his career in the office of Senator George Voinovich (OH)Joe was recognized by The Hill as a Top Lobbyist in 2022 and 2023. He is also a 2022 Maverick PAC Future40 Awardee. In 2017, Joe was named by POLITICO as a top Senate operative in the “New Guard” Power List, a guide described as “crucial to understanding the players who are breaking through in the all-consuming era of Donald Trump.”Joe is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Georgetown University and the George Washington University School of Law.Joe and I talked at length about the origins of the TikTok bill, and the legislation drafted to ban the Chinese-owned app for over 170M Americans. We talked about the young man named Bijan Koomariaie. Joe then shared a story about how he met and interviewed a young lawyer named Bijan Koomaraie, who he introduced to Congresswoman Cathy MacMorris Rodgers of Washington State – a top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce committee – to be her legal counsel. Shortly thereafter Steve Scalise, House Majority Leader – based on Bijan's acumen as counsel – poached Bijan to be HIS technology counsel overseeing all that's going through the house Republican conference. This same TikTok bill was passed by the House and the Senate, and signed by President Biden on April 24th of 2024. We then moved on to talk a bit about RFK and his ascendancy as an Independent candidate – a candidate who pledges to be on the ballot in all 50 states before the November election – and how and why RFK is making some real waves for both parties in 2024. We ended our talk by discussing the possibilities of Mr. Trump's growing stable of VP candidates – and which ones we believe have a chance – and those we deemed unworthy of future discussions.This was my first interview with Joe Hack, but we had so much fun (both on and off camera) that we are going to continue our conversation under the heading of Joey Squared moving forward.I hope you enjoy this episode as much as I did.Watch Episode: This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit truethirty.substack.com/subscribe

LGBTQ rights and religious freedom are often pitted against one another, but they are not mutually exclusive. This episode of Respecting Religion looks at the recent decision by the United Methodist Church to repeal its ban on LGBTQ clergy and same-sex weddings as well as the broader conversation. Holly Hollman is joined by guest co-host Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, BJC Communications Director. He shares some of his personal story, then he and Holly reflect on work bridging differences between LGBTQ rights advocacy and religious groups that oppose LGBTQ protections. They highlight the Respect for Marriage Act as one hallmark of bipartisan consensus building that achieves civil rights protections and safeguards religious liberty.    SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 1:23): The changing landscape of LGBTQ rights and religious freedom Learn more about Guthrie Graves-Fitzimmons in his BJC bio. Find more resources on religious liberty and the LGBTQ community on BJC's website.  For in-depth information about public opinion on LGBTQ rights among different religious groups, visit the Public Religion Research Institute's website at this link.     Segment 2 (starting at 5:20): The United Methodist Church lifts ban on LGBTQ clergy Read coverage from Ruth Graham of The New York Times: United Methodist Church Reverses Ban on Practicing Gay Clergy Read Guthrie's MSNBC column: “Why United Methodists' historic vote means so much to gay Christians like me.”   Segment 3 (starting 16:33): Bridging differences  Holly and Guthrie discussed the 2020 Brookings Institution report “A Time to Heal, A Time to Build,” by E.J. Dionne Jr. and Melissa Rogers.  Respecting Religion has devoted several episodes to the topics discussed in this episode. Listen to Season 4, Episode 7 for more on the Respect for Marriage Act, Season 4, Episode 26 for more on 303 Creative v. Elenis, and Season 1, Episode 17 for more on Bostock v. Clayton County.   Read more about BJC's reaction to the Obergefell decision in 2015 in this column from Holly Hollman: Obergefell decision does not remove the separation of church and state. You can also access a 2-page resource with frequently asked questions about the decision. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

Edited highlights of our full length conversation. Which two things are true at once? Robbie Kaplan is a lawyer and the founding partner at Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP. Robbie is best known for successfully challenging a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. Today, gay marriage is legal in America because Robbie Kaplan stood in front of the Supreme Court and argued for it. Recently, she was E. Jean Carroll's lawyer in both of her successful lawsuits against Donald Trump. And among Robbie's many awards is one from The Financial Times, which named her the “Most Innovative Lawyer of the Year”. People that know her, say about Robbie Kaplan, “she just sees things from a thousand different angles all at once, it's hard to keep up with her thought processes. She's not afraid, if she sees a problem, to go figure out some law that's going to allow her to fix it.”  Others say she is “a lawyer that you don't want to see opposing you.”  They say, “she's brilliant, she's unrelenting, she can't be intimidated and she's not going to back down. She eats bullies for lunch.” And the Washington Post has described Robbie as “a brash and original strategist, a crusader for underdogs who has won almost every legal accolade imaginable.” Which may make this admission surprising. Not everyone doubts themselves.  But many people do.  If you are one of those people, if sometimes feeling that you are an imposter is holding you back, is preventing you from unlocking the potential of the people around you, as in yourself, then let me offer you this. Two things can be true at once. You can feel like an imposter and achieve extraordinary things at the same time. You do have to be clear about the extraordinary things, and why they matter to you. But then that's what leadership is all about.

Edited highlights of our full length conversation. Which two things are true at once? Robbie Kaplan is a lawyer and the founding partner at Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP. Robbie is best known for successfully challenging a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. Today, gay marriage is legal in America because Robbie Kaplan stood in front of the Supreme Court and argued for it. Recently, she was E. Jean Carroll's lawyer in both of her successful lawsuits against Donald Trump. And among Robbie's many awards is one from The Financial Times, which named her the “Most Innovative Lawyer of the Year”. People that know her, say about Robbie Kaplan, “she just sees things from a thousand different angles all at once, it's hard to keep up with her thought processes. She's not afraid, if she sees a problem, to go figure out some law that's going to allow her to fix it.”  Others say she is “a lawyer that you don't want to see opposing you.”  They say, “she's brilliant, she's unrelenting, she can't be intimidated and she's not going to back down. She eats bullies for lunch.” And the Washington Post has described Robbie as “a brash and original strategist, a crusader for underdogs who has won almost every legal accolade imaginable.” Which may make this admission surprising. Not everyone doubts themselves.  But many people do.  If you are one of those people, if sometimes feeling that you are an imposter is holding you back, is preventing you from unlocking the potential of the people around you, as in yourself, then let me offer you this. Two things can be true at once. You can feel like an imposter and achieve extraordinary things at the same time. You do have to be clear about the extraordinary things, and why they matter to you. But then that's what leadership is all about.

Here's a question. Which two things are true at once? This week's guest is Robbie Kaplan. Robbie is a lawyer and the founding partner at Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP. Robbie is best known for successfully challenging a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act. Today, gay marriage is legal in America because Robbie Kaplan stood in front of the Supreme Court and argued for it. Recently, she was E. Jean Carroll's lawyer in both of her successful lawsuits against Donald Trump. And among Robbie's many awards is one from The Financial Times, which named her the “Most Innovative Lawyer of the Year”. People that know her, say about Robbie Kaplan, “she just sees things from a thousand different angles all at once, it's hard to keep up with her thought processes. She's not afraid, if she sees a problem, to go figure out some law that's going to allow her to fix it.”  Others say she is “a lawyer that you don't want to see opposing you.”  They say, “she's brilliant, she's unrelenting, she can't be intimidated and she's not going to back down. She eats bullies for lunch.” And the Washington Post has described Robbie as “a brash and original strategist, a crusader for underdogs who has won almost every legal accolade imaginable.” Which may make this admission surprising. Not everyone doubts themselves.  But many people do.  If you are one of those people, if sometimes feeling that you are an imposter is holding you back, is preventing you from unlocking the potential of the people around you, as in yourself, then let me offer you this. Two things can be true at once. You can feel like an imposter and achieve extraordinary things at the same time. You do have to be clear about the extraordinary things, and why they matter to you. But then that's what leadership is all about.

For the 100th episode of Respecting Religion, Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman answer listener questions, ranging from the law surrounding the tax-exempt status of religious institutions to their favorite Supreme Court justices. They also look at some of the big Supreme Court decisions and the shifts on the Court since this podcast began four years ago, sharing some of their favorite and most impactful episodes.   SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): How did we get to 100 episodes? The podcast series on the dangers of Christian nationalism ran in 2019, and it's available on the BJC Podcast feed, and you can see all of the episodes on this page of the Christians Against Christian Nationalism website.  Holly and Amanda mentioned some of their favorite episodes, including: S3, Ep. 21: The live show reacting to the Kennedy v. Bremerton decision S4, Ep. 22: Amanda's experience at the ReAwaken America tour S1, Ep. 15: Reacting to President Trump's photo-op with a Bible in 2020 You can see a list of every single episode at BJConline.org/RespectingReligion   Segment 2 (starting at 19:06): Questions on tax-exempt status, tough conversations, and more Holly mentioned the 1983 case of Bob Jones University v. United States. You can read the decision here. For more about the Respect for Marriage Act, check out episode 7 from season 4: Does the Respect for Marriage Act protect religious liberty? For more on the Johnson Amendment and the way it protects churches and other groups who are eligible for the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, visit this page on our website. Amanda and Holly also discussed it a bit on episode 4 of season 2: Grading the Trump administration on religious freedom. Holly mentioned episode 6 from season 3: Challenging misinformation: How to have productive conversations with friends and family.   Segment 3 (starting at 34:07): Questions on podcast recommendations, favorite Supreme Court justices, and more The podcasts mentioned by Amanda and Holly were: Strict Scrutiny Prosecuting Donald Trump  The Ezra Klein Show Another Mother Runner Amicus Ten Percent Happier Amanda and Holly discussed being interns at BJC. The internship program is ongoing – learn more about the opportunities by visiting BJConline.org/internships Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

As a child, Sen. Tammy Baldwin suffered a months-long illness, leaving her with a preexisting condition that made obtaining health insurance impossible. The experience inspired her to pursue public office, first locally from her home in Madison, Wisconsin, and later as a member of the U.S. Senate. Sen. Baldwin joined David to talk about healthcare, tackling the mental health and opioid abuse crises, GOP culture wars, and working across the aisle to pass the Respect for Marriage Act.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

This week is the anniversary of two dark and pivotal cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. In June 2013, the high court ruled in United States v. Windsor that the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 violated Due Process. This essentially made the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges judgment, which redefined millennia of law on marriage, inevitable.  Justice Anthony Kennedy unwittingly defined our chaotic age in the majority opinion for Obergefell when he declared, “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”  This idea—that people can freely craft their identity independent from nature, science, and reality—is behind so much of the moral confusion of the last few years. But it has certainly not led to the “liberty” that Justice Kennedy promised. This is the opportunity for Christians to point not only to an abstract moral position, but to reality itself and to the God who made it. 

Today we're ringing in the new year with a recap of 2022. This was a big year, complete with huge events like the war in Ukraine beginning, the Respect for Marriage Act, and Roe being overturned. We go month by month and break down the tragedy, clownery, and humor of the year, covering people like Dylan Mulvaney, Ron DeSantis, Trump, and Queen Elizabeth. We also look at some of the weirdest smaller moments of the year, like the slap heard 'round the world (Will Smith's Oscars slap), AOC's brave and courageous arrest, and Sam Brinton's wild luggage thievery. --- Timecodes: (00:30) Introduction (02:30) January (09:15) February (16:55) March (35:55) April (37:43) May (44:56) June (51:50) July (01:00:04) August (01:04:58) September (01:12:04) October (01:16:15) November (01:19:40) December --- Today's Sponsors: Cozy Earth — go to CozyEarth.com/ALLIE and use promo code 'ALLIE' at checkout to save 35% off your order! --- Relevant Episodes: Ep 555 | Canada's Freedom Convoy, Media Myths & the End of COVID? https://apple.co/3HKOrsY Ep 573 | Fact vs. Fiction on Ukraine & Russia | Guest: Josh Hammer https://apple.co/3PCWYAn Ep 591 | Race-Baiters to White Women: 'Shut Up' https://apple.co/3FXtAjV Ep 692 | Sorry, Ulta: Men Can't Be Moms https://apple.co/3WqGcGD Ep 574 | The Truth About Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' Bill & Texas' 'Attack on Trans Kids' https://apple.co/3FBp76g Ep 621 | Why Banning Guns Won't Fix It https://apple.co/3V185Ec Ep 633 | GOODBYE, ROE V. WADE https://apple.co/3FD6zSX Ep 536 | Ghislaine Maxwell, Secret CIA Sex Crimes & the Jussie Smollett Hoax | Guest: Jack Posobiec https://apple.co/3V6hNoW Ep 657 | What the FBI Did to Trump, They'll Do to You https://apple.co/3BK5uro Ep 667 | After Hormones & Surgery, She Found Christ | Guest: Sophia Galvin https://apple.co/3jhAAjW Ep 671 | Fake Racism, Fake Oppression, Fake Science, Fake Love https://apple.co/3v01PBX Ep 680 | Diversity is Not Martha's Vineyard's Strength https://apple.co/3WsW0st Ep 681 | Gender Identity or Sexual Fetish? & Big Win for Virginia Parents | Guest: Jennifer Lahl https://apple.co/3HQfuU1 Ep 673 | Biden Thinks You're a Threat. You Are https://apple.co/3Yr8ym5 Ep 722 | The Death of Democracy & the Birth of Twitter 2.0 | Guest: Auron MacIntyre https://apple.co/3HGDmJz Ep 708 | Dems' Secret Deal with Ukraine & a Word for Pastors https://apple.co/3HKSEwM Ep 718 | Kanye Praises Hitler & Defends Balenciaga https://apple.co/3HIt5N1 Ep 715 | The Bizarre Tale of the Luggage-Stealing Gender Fluid Kink Star https://apple.co/3jcxNZb Ep 714 | The Balenciaga Story Is Even Worse than You Think https://apple.co/3hBw67a --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE20' for 20% off the entire shop:https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Catherine Sanderson (Poler Family Professor of Psychology and Chair of Psychology at Amherst College) and James Lynch (Communications Strategist) join host Ron Steslow to unpack some of the most important stories of the week and how they're shaping the political landscape: (02:58) The Trump Circus and Republicans' response to his meeting with a white nationalist  (19:41) The protests in China and the global fight for democracy (34:20) ‘Political hobbyism' in the workplace  [Politicology+ Subscribers Only] The Senate passes the Respect for Marriage Act with 12 Republican votes and the shift in support for marriage equality on both sides of the aisle Politicology+ is our private, ad-free version of this podcast, with subscriber-only episodes, strategy, and analysis. To join us there, visit politicology.com/plus or subscribe in Apple Podcasts. Read “Political Hobbyism Has Entered the Workplace” in The Atlantic: https://bit.ly/3ugynrd Follow this week's panel on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RonSteslow https://twitter.com/SandersonSpeaks https://twitter.com/JamesGLynch Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

County officials in Arizona are certifying their results...but only after saying they must to avoid being sent to prison? Kari Lake joins to lay out the current situation in Arizona and why it matters so much for the entire country. Plus, Senator Mike Lee of Utah exposes the grave danger of the “Respect for Marriage Act," which 12 Republicans are cluelessly (or treacherously) supporting.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this sample from the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance discuss Attorney General Merrick Garland's decision to appoint a special counsel to handle the federal investigations into former President Donald Trump. What are the benefits and risks associated with a special counsel handling these investigations? And to what extent might the special counsel appointment impact the likelihood that Trump is ultimately charged? The full episode covers:  – The complications that might arise from holding a criminal trial against Trump during the presidential election season; – The New York Times report indicating that Manhattan prosecutors are reviving the criminal investigation into Trump's involvement in the alleged hush-money payment made to Stormy Daniels; and – The Respect for Marriage Act, the landmark bill that would provide federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages, which is currently being considered in the Senate. Stay informed. For analysis of the most important legal and political issues of our time, join the CAFE Insider membership. Get 50% off the annual membership price: www.cafe.com/insider, from now until Nov 30. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast, and other exclusive benefits. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE Studios and Vox Media Podcast Network.  REFERENCES & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS:  “Appointment of John L. Smith as Special Counsel,” Attorney General Merrick Garland, 11/18/22 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices