Podcasts about Marriage Act

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

In the new look and new sounding sixth season of the Let's Talk Human Rights podcast, titled “Getting it Right – Championing Human Rights for Effective Governance”, our host Masechaba Mdaka explores the progress and successes in the human rights space across a range of critical issues, focusing on how these challenges are being addressed and the solutions that are proving effective. Countless organisations are doing vital work—both behind the scenes and on the frontlines as human rights defenders. Yet we seldom pause to recognise or celebrate when we get it right. These moments of success have a direct impact on the protection of democratic values, the promotion of equity, and the strengthening of governance—benefits that should be enjoyed by every citizen of every nation. Episode 1 delves into Malawi's Children's Act and the country's efforts to end child marriage. Masechaba investigates how the Malawian government took the progressive step of amending its Constitution to raise the legal age of a child from 16 to 18, and speaks with those who are working tirelessly to ensure the continued illegal practice is both discouraged and eradicated. This powerful and deeply moving episode shares the lived experiences of two individuals—a young girl and a young woman—and follows their personal journeys, revealing how child marriage has shaped their lives. It sheds light on the devastating impact of this harmful traditional practice, particularly on young women and girls, stripping them of their agency, denying them future opportunities, and often condemning them to lives of dependency and abuse. Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom Sub-Saharan Africa · FNF Africa

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/

Shownotes and Transcript On this episode of Hearts of Oak Podcast, we sit down with Topher Field, a prominent Australian libertarian commentator and activist. Topher shares his experience navigating the challenging landscape of media and activism during the COVID-19 lockdowns in Melbourne. He discusses the charges he faced for advocating peaceful protests against government actions and the importance of freedom of speech in the face of oppressive measures. The interview delves into the impact of lockdowns on mental health and relationships, which fuelled Topher's increased activism. He provides a detailed account of the progression of protests in Melbourne, highlighting the power of grassroots movements in challenging authority. The conversation also touches on leaderless movements, accountability in COVID inquiries, and the need to resist oppressive policies. Throughout the episode, Topher encourages listeners to question authority, uphold morality, and resist unjust laws and critiques the worship of government and the compliance of churches with oppressive regulations, advocating for spiritual autonomy and the purity of faith-based practices. Over 15 years Topher Field has accumulated over 2 Million video views, over 150,000 regular followers, 14 film awards, 2 Libertarian awards, and released his first book in 2023. But his proudest achievement is without doubt his two criminal charges for ‘Incitement'. During the world famous Melbourne Lockdowns Topher was awarded these charges by Victoria Police for encouraging people to exercise their Human Rights during the Covid era in 2021. Topher is a renowned public speaker, interviewer, podcaster, writer, satirist, and champion of Human Rights. Good People Break Bad Laws: Civil Disobedience in the Modern Age in paperback and e-book from Amazon   amzn.eu/d/09MJazgR Watch award winning 'Battleground Melbourne'   battlegroundmelbourne.com Connect with Topher... WEBSITE          topherfield.net X/TWITTER       x.com/TopherField INSTAGRAM     instagram.com/topherfield Interview recorded  16.7.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ Transcript (Hearts of Oak) And I'm delighted to have someone from down under that I've seen the name quite a bit in my feeds over the last couple of years. It's always great to talk to someone that you've watched from afar, and that's Topher Field. Topher, thank you so much for your time today. (Topher Field) Well, Peter, what a pleasure, and thank you for having me. Not at all, it's great to have you on. And obviously, people can follow you @TopherField on Twitter, and TopherField.net is your website. And of course you're, I mean I've seen you on twitter quite a bit and whenever Sam Sobel connected us, and I thought I kind of recognized that name, because Topher is not a name that's very popular. So, you're thinking that definitely sticks out but you're probably one of Australia's leading, I think most recognized libertarian political commentators. And you've, it's it's your work in in the media and I know that's your background from when you were younger and now you've really made a name for yourself winning awards: libertarian awards. Also that documentary Battleground Melbourne setting. The madness that you faced there in Australia and author of Good People Break Bad Laws which is a fascinating topic. I know we'll delve into that a little bit and loved, I think on your website you said that your proudest moment, proudest achievement is getting those incitements, those punishments for standing up against the COVID lockdown. Not just punishments, criminal charges. They chased me with criminal charges and tried to lock me away for two and a half years for the crime of encouraging people to exercise their human right to engage in peaceful political protest at a time when our government was violating human rights. So yeah, that is honestly, that is my proudest achievement and, I hope never to have to repeat such a thing in my, in the future, but unfortunately you and I both know this fight is far from over. Oh, absolutely. Could I tell them, I mean, leading, leading up to that, what, you're also your, your background, I mean, you grew up with your dad being involved in media and your understanding a little bit about the business. Some of us have been thrown into this and we've either sunk or swell or swum, but you kind of had a little bit of an understanding. Can you tell us about your role in the media leading up to, I guess, the COVID tyranny. What had been your primary focus in terms of putting a message out up until, I guess, up until 2020? Well, I'm probably the world's only accidental political commentator. I was driving a forklift in a warehouse, quite enjoying myself, making good money. I enjoyed the manual labor, the repetition of it, and I could go home. And I was working on a fiction novel at the time and doing a bit of acting. And just enjoying sort of creative expression. And my cousin came into work one day. Yes, I'm the cliche forklift driving cousin working at the same place, kind of life, very blue collar. And my cousin comes into work and he says, Topher, you should audition for project next. And I said, what's that? It was a project being run by a very respected Australian journalist where he was recruiting and looking for the next generation of news producers, presenters, writers, researchers, these sorts of things. And in order to audition, you had to submit a video. So I went, okay, my dad taught me how to do videos. He was involved in community television. He was in professional radio and then in community television. And I cut my teeth from the earliest ages that I can remember. There was a camera in the house and I've been editing and doing audio and all that stuff. I learned the craft from him. So, I put that to good use and I made a video as an audition. And I was deliberately quite controversial, because I didn't want to find that I got into this show and then had my wings clipped and they were telling me what I could say or what I couldn't say. So I was deliberately pretty provocative and I didn't get in. Surprise, surprise. And so then I was left with this video that I had nothing. This is 2009. I didn't even have a YouTube channel. In fact, in Australia in 2009, most people didn't have internet fast enough to play YouTube videos in real time. You had to let them buffer for a few minutes. So, I started a brand new YouTube channel with zero subscribers. I uploaded the video and I sent it to my mom and she must've watched that video 30,000 times because shortly afterwards, was I had 30,000 views, which is pretty extraordinary for 2009 in Australia, doing a 12 minute long political exploration of water supply issues into my home city of Melbourne. Tell me how a video like that gets 30,000 views, even in today's market, let alone back then. So, then people began asking me to do more videos and I'm going, this is absurd. I'm a forklift driver. What do you think I am? I'm nothing. And eventually someone came to me with a video. I said no to everybody, and then someone came to me with a video that I couldn't say no to, and I said yes to that second video, and then I said yes to a third video and a fourth video, and it became a bit of a thing. My main focus has actually been water and water supply issues, particularly to irrigation farmers in what's called the Murray Darling Basin in Australia. So, 40% of Australia's food comes from this part of the world, and our government is destroying farmers by regulating and restricting access to irrigation water. So, that's really what I've spent most of my time talking about. But I did a series on climate change where I partnered with Lord Christopher Monckton in the UK, and I travelled to the US and Canada, interviewed a bunch of people. Professor Fred Singer, before he passed away, is one of my sort of proudest achievements to have had the chance to speak to him while he was alive. I've done work on freedom of speech. I've done work on over-regulation, over-taxation, cost of living, and a range of other sort of topics along the way. Basically always on the I'm a libertarian. So, I'm always coming from that libertarian perspective, but I'm also a Christian. So, bringing those two together and that's a pretty rare thing in Australia there really isn't a lot of a lot of people in that space in Australia and broadly on the conservative side of politics. Oh that's fascinating. Water management and freedom of speech. How do those fit together? So, I've had to ask myself the same question and the best answer I've got for you, Peter, and it's not necessarily a good answer, but it's the best one I've got, is that I struggle to walk past an injustice. Once I see something and go, that's wrong. That should not be the way it is. I find it very difficult to just ignore it and pretend I didn't see. And so water management, I kind of fell into because my very first video was about water supply into Melbourne city, which is a 4.4 and a half million person city that was on heavy water restrictions. There was a drought at the time and they were building a desalination plant and I've said the desalination plant was a bad idea and we should instead build a dam on there's a particular river where there was a dam reservation set aside by engineers 100 years ago, but politics being what it is today they were refusing to build a dam there for greeny sort of reasons. So, that's that was my very first video and then someone said well if you think that's bad have a look at what they're doing down irrigators up on the Murray River. And I investigated that and boy, boy, is that is that bad and people are literally being pushed to suicide and despair and bankruptcy and everything. And of course, it impacts food prices and has a knock-on effect to us all. So for me, that was kind of a fight that I couldn't walk past. But as a political commentator, freedom of speech is essential to my work. It's a non-negotiable, and it should be a non-negotiable for us all, but it's especially a non-negotiable when that's your stock in trade, is the right and the ability to say, government, you're wrong. You're doing the wrong thing. And so I was already defending, I was defending freedom of speech before it was cool. And then, of course, COVID came along and we saw censorship just escalate to an entirely new level. But those two have really been two of my biggest topics along the way. Tell us about during the COVID tyranny. I saw a level, and probably you did as well in Australia, a level of frustration boiling over that we haven't seen in a long time. We saw demonstrations against the Iraq war back in Tony Blair's time, a million people on the streets. Since then, we hadn't seen anything else. It was the pool tax rats and Margaret Thatcher's time, going back to that. And suddenly this happens and you've got huge, huge crowds coming out and active, I guess not civil obedience, but beginning to beginning to walk towards that line. I mean were you surprised that certainly in Britain people seem to be pushed and pushed and pushed and the the frustration boils out at the pub over a couple of drinks and that's the the level of it. Yeah. But something happened to push people how did you see that and view that because I wasn't in media at that point. We had just started two months before, but you saw this through a perspective of someone in the media. Tell us how you viewed that in your country. Our experience was very different in Melbourne as compared to anywhere else in Australia, let alone anywhere else in the world. So, for those that don't know, Melbourne became the most locked down city in the world and remains that to this day with the exception of China. China then did go on to do even more extreme things, but for a long time, Melbourne was the most locked down and outside of China continues to be the most locked down city in the world. We had de facto house arrest. You could not leave your house unless you were leaving for less than one hour and for an approved set of conditions. They shut down schools. They shut down all but essential workplaces. They shut down even kids' playgrounds and things. You could not so much as go to a beach and sit on the beach to watch a sunset. Even in your one hour of yard time, you would be arrested if you were found to have left the house just to go and enjoy some sunshine. So we had a curfew, an 8 p.m. curfew that was enforced very, very vigorously, very, very violently. We had what was called a ring of steel. This was a series of checkpoints that separated metropolitan Melbourne from the rest of rural Victoria. And they had military manning that checkpoint and demanding that you show paperwork to prove that you had a need to travel across that artificial new border that they'd put up around the city. And we had protests being treated as completely illegal. So, I spoke at the very first anti-lockdown protest, and this was my first ever conscious act of civil disobedience. It was the first time I walked out my door. I was 38 years old or so. I was a clean skin, ex-Army Reserve, ex-I'd done a bunch of charitable work. I was a clean skin. You look at my police record, It was better than spotless. It was positive. I'd handed in wallets that I'd found on the street and all sorts of stuff, right? And then all of a sudden, here I am walking out my door to go and deliberately speak at a rally that had been declared to be illegal. And that was really a turning point in my life and took me in a whole new direction, because I live streamed that event and such was the hunger. People were desperate, but no one was yet willing to make any moves. By the time I got home from that event, that live stream had been watched over 100,000 times. And this is just a live stream on Facebook. I had a Facebook page with maybe 10,000 people on it. So, that was a pretty big deal for me at the time. And people, you know, I had a wave of abuse pour into my inbox, into my emails and so forth. People angry how dare you. You're killing grandma all that sort of stuff. Then shortly on the back of that there was a wave of support: thank you for speaking out I've been thinking the same thing, but I thought I was going crazy, now I know I'm not. And then on the back of that was a wave of despair, people reaching out in emails and in messages into my inbox just needing to tell me their story, because by this point in time we were about we were about by then we're about eight weeks in to lockdowns, seven weeks into lockdowns. And for anyone who was already at the margins financially, was already close to the wind, this was absolutely decimating them. For anyone whose mental health was already borderline, this was destroying them. Anyone whose marriage was close to breaking up, this was the final straw. And I just had people pouring their hearts out to me. And at first, I thought, why are you talking to me? I can't help you. I've got nothing. I'm in the same position as you. I've got a kid, a pregnant wife. My business is going down the tube, because I had I had another business separate to the political commentary at the time. My life is as much of a mess as yours. Why are you asking me for help? And then I realized they weren't asking me for help. Not one of them asked me to help them. What they wanted was someone to listen. And this is the tragedy of what happened, Peter, is all of the people that were supposed to be there for them had turned their back. The church pastors, the mental health counsellors, most of the politicians, a lot of people's families had all turned their back on them to the point that they were digging up the contact details of a YouTube political commentator and pouring their heart out to me in emails and messages. Such was the isolation that they experienced. So in that context, you can understand that the protests remained very, very small for many, many months. We saw violent arrests where if someone was known to have been organizing protests, the police would show up at their door at six o'clock in the morning with a battering ram, smash their way through the door, violently tackle them to the ground, hospitalizing them in some cases. We saw extreme levels of violence that we're not used to in Australia. This is not the kind of place where these things happen. And so that kept our numbers really small, really down in the few hundreds. And myself and a number of other courageous people, we kept on getting out there and kept on doing it anyway, knowing the risks and getting attacked by riot squads and attacked by police on horses, and threats of arrest, and all sorts of things. And then the government made a tactical mistake. There was a woman by the name of Zoe Bueller, and she was out of town. She was outside of that ring of steel that I mentioned earlier. She lived in a rural town, and she said, hey, let's get together and do a protest at the local park during our one hour of yard time. Now, the thing with her was where she was, that was actually legal. But the police arrested her anyway. They went into her home and her husband live streamed, or she live streamed on her phone, her arrest. And that was her, you may be familiar with it, in her pyjamas. She's pregnant. There's a couple of kids in the home. And she's saying, being arrested for what? They were arresting her for incitement, the very same charge that they later charged me with. And that video went viral. And that really turned the movement from just a couple of hundred hardcore people doing what our conscience required us to do against all odds and all of a sudden we were getting a couple of thousand people. And then there was a year or so of that on and off increasing police violence ultimately leading to them shooting us with rubber bullets and then finally their conscience that they were shamed effectively, by us refusing to back down and their conscience got the better of them and the police finally said: hey we're not doing the violence anymore and then all of a sudden our numbers exploded into the hundreds of thousands it's. That accidental leadership which I think has been intriguing and probably is at the heart of what makes the establishment afraid, because when you look at all different demonstrations they kind of come from organizations that then push that agenda, that idea, and then arrange demonstrations, arrange rallies, arrange protests but this had; I mean the people that I'm sure it's same for you, that I've met, who've come from sports, from music, from different industry, from never done as you said a protest in their life suddenly come out. And it's been fascinating that accidental leadership that we have seen worldwide. Yeah, and you're absolutely right this is what makes them afraid. It's the hydra. And this is this really came out to me and I really bring this point out in battleground Melbourne the documentary which you can watch for free at battlegroundmelbourne.com The thing that I really wanted to bring out there was this isn't my story. I had the privilege of being the storyteller, but it's not actually my story. I didn't write that. That was written by the people of Melbourne, the people of Victoria, and the courage that they showed. And what we see time and again, the theme that I really sought to bring out in that documentary was we kept on being knocked down. And then without any structured leadership, there was no board of directors making decisions. People just got creative. And somehow the movement as a whole stood back up again. It might have been different people. It might've been in a different place and it might've been in a different form. But every time the government thought they'd finally knocked us down, we reappeared as a movement. We reappeared in some new form and we were continuously adapting our tactics and they were continuously adapting their tactics. And in the end, they got to the point where they couldn't escalate any further. And we still hadn't gone away. We still hadn't backed down. They literally got to the point where the only thing left for them to do was to start shooting with live ammunition. That was their last option. They had done everything else up to that point. Tear gas and riot police and mounted police and home invasions and rubber bullets onto, you know, shooting people in the back, unarmed people in the back with rubber bullets at the Shrine of Remembrance, a war memorial of all places. I mean, absolute disgrace. And then after doing that, thinking, oh, we finally got them. They're going to run away scared now. Well, then along came nurses and teachers who completely transformed the whole way the movement looked. They showed up in parks in their uniforms, wearing masks, socially distanced, with writing on their tops saying how long they'd been a teacher or how long they'd been a nurse and these sorts of things. And they just stood silently in the park. So, all of a sudden, now that they'd gone to the rubber bullets, et cetera, gone was the rabble rousing and the chanting and everything else. Now, all of a sudden, they're faced with a bunch of young women, mostly incredibly courageous, standing in parks, socially distanced, wearing masks and silent. And they show up with the rubber bullet guns and they show up with the riot police and they show up with the horses. And I think finally, it was like a mirror looking back at them. And suddenly they saw themselves and realized what they'd become. And it was shortly after that that they released, they leaked this letter to the public, which they'd sent to the premier saying, we're not doing this anymore. It's time to put away the tear gas. We're not doing the violence anymore. It's exactly what you're talking about. The way I paraphrase it is this. We were ordinary people who were faced with extraordinary times. All we did was make the decision to do what was right, even though it was our government that was wrong. That's it. That's it. That's all we are. Because there were enough of us and because we had the courage to keep coming back and to keep getting back up in spite of what we faced, in the end, we won. And that, I think, is a massive lesson and for all of humanity with everything that we're up against, because a leaderless, decentralized, organic movement is unstoppable for as long as we don't stop. It's up to us to just go, we're just going to keep going. A movement with leaders can be stopped if you take out the leaders, you know, strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter. But what if there's no shepherd? What if the sheep have started to think for themselves? And that's what we created here in Melbourne. And I think that's a model. That's not to take anything away from people who do step into leadership, but I think that's a model for us. We become unstoppable if we adopt that model. And I want to pick up one of the two things we've learned. And I'm asking you that not just because it's a historical event that we can learn a lot from, but here in the UK, we right now have the COVID inquiry. I think in the next day or two, it's going to release its first findings. And the figures on the COVID inquiry here in the UK, it's thought it'll be the most expensive inquiry in British history. It's just going to be under just under 200 million pounds for the whole inquiry. I think I read something like cost of £130,000 or £140,000 a day. So, I'm asking you your experiences, because we are going through this charade of a COVID inquiry. Has there been, and of course, that's not going to lead to anything. But in Australia, have there been questions? We've seen a kind of slow change in the media on the right, but getting to say, actually, you know, we were always saying we shouldn't buy onto this. I said, uh-uh, no, you weren't. You had like an article every two months that might touch on another side. But what about you in terms of reckoning for the media, in terms of reckoning for politicians on what Australians were put through? Nowhere near enough. We've had a couple of really good politicians, particularly a couple of really good senators who have been relentlessly pursuing this. And they've had some small wins. But one of the things that is just a reality that we have to be willing to accept and push our way through is that the powers that be have a lot of layers of defence. So, they'll try and stop an inquiry from happening. And then once they can't stop the inquiry from happening, they try and rig the inquiry by, you know, rigging the terms of reference or rigging who the commissioner is or these sorts of things. We've just seen unfolding right now in Australia, we have a senator for the United Australia Party called Ralph Babbitt, Senator Ralph Babbitt, great guy. He managed to get a, I don't remember the technical term for it, but it's some form of inquiry and a bunch of people made submissions to that inquiry. And then the person running the inquiry has just announced they're not going to publish a lot of those submissions. They're taking them as almost like comments. Right. And they're not actually publishing them as part of the inquiry. It's like, well, no, you don't get to silence the Australian people like that. And so now Senator Babet is taking up that particular fight to try and make sure that this actually gets done properly, et cetera. So, they kind of have defence in depth, because there's a lot of tricks and tools that they get to use. And every single one of them is a new layer that we have to battle our way through. What I think though is is going to happen much faster than we've seen in history, so in history we saw for example the thalidomide debacle where for a very long time if you know thalidomide being dangerous was considered to be misinformation and you were uninformed and ignorant if you said that it was, or asbestos, and then all of a sudden everyone always knew that it was dangerous. Right? That was you know we saw that trend and we're watching that happen in some parts of the media now: oh, I've always said that we should be careful about an untested vaccine. No you didn't, you told everyone to go out and get jabbed, right? Yeah. So, we're seeing that revisionism is kicking in. But it took 40 years for thalidomide to finally get apologies and compensation and these sorts of things. But that happened before the internet. And that happened when we weren't as able to communicate with each other as what we are now and able to dig and discern the truth. The gatekeepers of old are no longer, they no longer hold the level of power that they used to have. And that allows us to accelerate the timelines. The other comment that I'll make, Peter, is people only start to pay attention to politics once it starts to hurt them. There's a thing called rational ignorance. It doesn't make sense. It's not rational for us to pay lots of attention to something that we can't really influence. Influence if we don't if we can't really control it well we should spend our time and focus you know invest that into the things that we can have more control over. So, there's a level of rational ignorance when it comes to politics. Why would I pay attention to politics when I can't really change anything anyway. And most Australians have that attitude until it hurts them and then all of a sudden they arc up. And then they can't understand why they can't get help from anyone else, well because it's not hurting them. So, the silver lining of something as tragic as what what we've seen during COVID, the silver lining is that it hurt a lot of people simultaneously. And a lot of people at the same time all stood up and said, hey, this isn't okay. I'm not happy with this. And then when they looked around for support, there were actually other people out there to support them because there was a lot of people standing up at the same time. And what's important now is that we maintain the rage, to use a tired old phrase. We cannot let up on this. We cannot let people take a revisionist view. Oh, we did the best we could with what we knew at the time. Any of that sort of, we cannot accept any of that. And we must just continue to relentlessly pursue justice and understand that this is a long-term project. We're not going to win this overnight. But what's happening now is we're getting organized at a level that we've never been before. And our pushback is getting sophisticated at a level that it never has been before. And more and more people are willing to take risks. And I'll use a local example to you, you, Peter. It would have been unimaginable in the 2000s for a situation to arise in a city like London where the ULEZ cameras would have been being vandalized on a widespread scale. That's unthinkable. The Blade Runner phenomenon, again, an example of a leaderless organic movement that just popped up where people used the internet and our ability to communicate with each other to find these cameras, to map them, to publish those maps. And then other people looked at those maps and made decisions about what they were going to do. I'm not condoning anything of course but observing what's happened that was unthinkable 20 years ago and now it's an ongoing phenomenon. So, I'm actually quite hopeful that a lot of these petty tyrants, these people who want to control and tell us how we're going to live, are going to find themselves bewildered by this array of pushback that seems to come out of nowhere. And they will go looking for the enemy and say, who's organized this? And the answer is no one. And that makes it really hard for them to stop. So, I'm actually really optimistic. And I think it was actually in the end, a good thing that COVID would hurt so many people and not good that they were hurt but it's good now that we live in a world where ordinary people are standing up in a way that we have not seen in my lifetime before. And that fits into your your book: Good People Break Bad Laws. Up until this point good people follow the law, good people call the police if there is a problem, good people vote for the the party that they think is best. Good people use the legal system for solutions to problems. And there's a whole list of what good people, and I always looked at CND, the anti-war people, or kind of stop oil people and thought that's so disruptive. How dare they do that? And now... Either maybe I was dumb, maybe I didn't get it before, maybe I trust the institutions. But I think a lot of people, certainly more on the right, trusted the institutions to a large degree. Now that trust has completely gone. That contract, I think, with the government has been completely broken. And we've gone from good people follow the law, even if it's not necessarily the best law, you do what you do as a citizen, to hell no. we're going to break. That's a huge change in society, in a democratic society. That's a massive change. Yeah, there's a number of layers to this. First and foremost, pretty much everybody on all sides of politics acknowledges that civil disobedience has been the right thing in various moments in history. One of the most obvious being, of course, the civil rights movement to end segregation in the US. That's sort of a pretty obvious contemporary example where we say, Martin Luther King and even many people, Malcolm X and a bunch of others, yes, that was the right thing for them to do. Civil disobedience, breaking those laws was a good thing for them to do. And when you look in a historical context, there's almost universal agreement about that. But there is certainly on the more conservative side of politics, a real discomfort about it in real time. And that's simply because conservatives have been used since the end of the Second World War to being the ones in charge, which means that when someone is disobeying, they're disobeying the conservatives, right? They're disobeying the establishment and the conservatives identify as that. They're disobeying us. What a bunch of rabble-rousing ratbags. Well, there's a right way to do it and there's a wrong way to do it. And just stop oil, et cetera. We see them doing it in very, very destructive ways. And my book does address that. I talk about the right way and the wrong way to do these sorts of things. But in principle, doing what's right is always right, even if the law is wrong, right? And we have to accept an uncomfortable truth for a lot of conservatives. And like I said, I'm a libertarian, so I have no issue with this, but a lot of conservatives struggle with this. When you change the law, you do not change what is right or wrong. What is right or wrong is already right or wrong. And when we change a law, we're either admitting that it used to be wrong and now it's right, or maybe that it used to be right and now we've got it wrong, or maybe that it was wrong both times. But we can't pretend that just because some people in a room stood around and approved the change of wording that we've changed the laws of nature and morality and what's right and wrong. We haven't. So, when we write laws, our task is not to define what's right and what's wrong. It is to discern what's right and what's wrong and to align the law as closely as possible to that. And that's a matter of conscience. And I have to do what's right according to my conscience, even if the people in that room have written laws that disagree with that particular point of view. And this is necessary. This is essential. People say: oh, we can't all just run around doing whatever we think is best. No, no, no. We all have to live our lives doing what we think is best. Because guess what? When I stand before God, I can't turn around and say: oh, but Peter made me do it. Peter told me it was the right thing to do. Nor can I say, oh, but a whole bunch of Peters in a house called parliament told me that it was the right thing to do. No, I don't get to outsource my morality. I'm accountable for my decisions, for the moral outcomes and the morality that is represented in the decisions that I make. And that's true, no matter what the law says. So what conservatives have to accept is that they are no longer in the majority. Okay. The cultural war has been lost. That's not to say that it's permanent. It's not permanently that way. But think about the sexual revolution and the aims of third wave feminism, the sexual revolution. They got everything they wanted, right? What we call conservative politics now is unrecognizable in the world of the 1950s. What we call conservative politics now is radical, progressive Marxist ideology. And we call that conservative now because we've completely lost track of how far we've slid. Conservatives have already lost the culture war. The culture war is over. Conservatives lost. What has happened now is that people who who believe in God. Who believe in family, who believe in what we would consider to be basic decency, basic morality, Judeo-Christian morals. We are now the revolutionaries. We are now the beatniks. We are now the hippies of our age. And we are the ones who are actually trying to bring about a revolution against an establishment that has rejected all of that morality. And we have to accept that that means that we need to adopt the tactics of the revolutionaries, the rebels. We're the cool kids now. That's the good news, Peter. We get to be the cool kids for a change rather than the stayed old, you know, the pearl clutches. The pearl clutches now are all on the left. Oh, you used the wrong pronouns. Oh, my heart, right? That's them now. We get to be the cool kids. And what that means is we have to accept and we have to move on from a lot of these old mindsets. And one of those mindsets was, oh, but it's the law. We all need to do what the law says. Well, that was always the wrong perspective. But not only now is it the wrong perspective, but it's also incredibly unhelpful. If the law is wrong, we have no obligation to obey and to do what's wrong. And in particular, I look at Psalm 94, I think it's verse 12, where it says that crooked leaders cannot be your friends. They use the law to cause suffering. And this is one of, I propose two tests for what a bad law is in my book, Good People Break Bad Laws. And one of them is a practical test, and one of them is a principles test. And the practical test is based on that verse in Psalm 94. Does this law cause suffering? Because that's the definition of a crooked ruler. A crooked ruler is someone who uses the law to cause suffering. And if the following or enforcing of a law causes more suffering than the breaking of that law would cause, then you are looking at a candidate for potentially a bad law. There's more to it than that. You have to read the book. But that becomes a candidate for this might be a bad law. And actually, my conscience might require me to disobey this law in order to do what's right. How, I will say I have not read the book, but I will be reading it. I'd encourage others because we are in different times and it's fascinating. And your comment about individual consciousness, individual responsibility, we seem to have contracted that out to a government that actually you're the ones that will decide what is good and what is bad, what's right and what's wrong. I no longer have to and we are in a completely different generation than previous generations in that there is no accountability. There's no right and wrong there's no accountability, and it's; yeah we have it we have to learn how to live as individuals within that new paradigm of actually people don't take personal responsibility for anything. And we'll see that in the COVID inquiry people say: oops. And what do you mean "oops"? How many people's lives were damaged? Destroyed? Kill? How many people were killed? This is not an oops and yet that seems to be where we are that there is zero personal responsibility for anything and certainly we see that in this in the States on obesity where actually you just take a drug, because that's just not nothing to your fault. And you just take a drug or it's your genes. No what about personal responsibility for lifestyle, but But that seems to have gone out the window completely. Peter, it's worse than that. So, I'm working on my second book, which will be out before the end of this year, which is titled Good Christians Break Bad Laws, Obeying God in a Fallen World. And it's specifically on the theology of civil disobedience. It looks at everyone from Dietrich Bonhoeffer and other sort of World War II heroes right back in history and then obviously diving deep into Scripture itself, Old Testament, New Testament, the words of Christ, et cetera, on this topic of obedience to government. Yes, I deal with Romans 13, 1 Peter 2. All of that is covered in this book. The reality of our situation, Peter, is that we actually now worship the government. And unfortunately, I have to include the church in that statement. What we saw during COVID, and I can't speak for where you are, but certainly where I am in the city of Melbourne, was almost every single church with a vanishingly small number of exceptions allowed the government to dictate to them whether or not they would open their doors,. Whether or not they would help the poor, whether or not they would gather and worship, whether or not they would take communion, how many people were allowed to sing etcetera. And and what they did was they turned around and said: oh no it's okay because we can we'll have a tiny skeleton crew in the building and we'll live stream church. You can do live stream church so this isn't a violation of our christian principles this isn't a violation of you know of the exhortation not to forsake the gathering together of the saints, because you can watch a video online. And of course when we look at the example: I'll just pull one example out, look at okay so we know that Daniel would pray multiple times a day he would open his window and he would. We pray in full public view. And when it was, I think, Nebuchadnezzar, I can always get mixed up between Darius and Nebuchadnezzar and all the others. I think it was Nebuchadnezzar was convinced by his secular advisors, his pagan advisors to make a law that said people could only pray to Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel didn't choose to keep praying in the privacy of his room and keep the door and the shutters closed. He could have done that. And he could have said, oh, well, I'm still practicing my religion. I'm just doing it in a way that's not going to provoke trouble. I don't want to cause any issues here. No, no, no. No, he opened those shutters and prayed in the same spot in full view because to go into hiding and say, oh, I'm still practicing my religion in secret is still saying to the government, you have the right to tell me that I can't do that. You're still conceding that ground to the government. And that means that you're giving the government more authority over your faith walk than God has. So, I believe that the church's biggest problem, and this is so funny because as a kid, you'd You'd read the Ten Commandments. You're like, oh, the idolatry one's out of date. Like, that doesn't apply anymore. Actually, I've realized, no, I'm completely wrong. Idolatry is the number one sin that we are facing in the church and in secular society here today. Specifically, we've made an idol with our own hands. Look at what the children of Israel did. They made calves with their own hands, and they fell down and worshipped them. When God designed government, God designed the system of judges. There was enough law that they could read it in three days, the whole thing. And they had a dispute resolution process. They could go to a judge to have a dispute be resolved. There was no other law and there was no other mechanism to make more law. And during the time of Isaiah, the children of Israel decided that that wasn't enough and they wanted a king. And they went to Isaiah and they demanded, oh, Samuel, was it? Excuse me, in the time of Samuel, I think it was. They demanded a king and they ended up getting Saul. When they went to Samuel and said to give us a king, Samuel was upset because he's being rejected as a judge and his children who are ungodly were being rejected as judges. And he takes it to God and God says to him, listen to what they're actually saying. They're not rejecting you. They're rejecting me as their king. And I'll cover all of this in the book, Good Christians Break Bad Laws. As their forefathers did in the wilderness, building golden calves and worshipping them. That's what God says in response. They are rejecting me as their king, as their forefathers did, building golden calves and worshipping them. God immediately equates creating a government that is beyond what God designed with idolatry. He immediately says, this is like worshipping a golden calf. And that's exactly where we are today. Look at the names of God in the Old Testament. Jehovah Jireh, my provider. Who do we look to for provision now? You know, the very Jehovah Nissi, Jehovah Tzidkenud, all the different names of God. They all have different meanings. My healer, my giver of wisdom, my protector, my refuge, my provider, et cetera. We look to the government for each and every one of those things now. We've literally worshipped government and allowed government to usurp God in every single part of our lives. And if it wasn't already obvious enough, it became glaringly obvious during COVID. And I think one of the most urgent needs in the world today is for Christians to get on our knees before God and repent of idolatry and worshipping government and obeying government, even where the government is the one causing misery. Even where the government has become crooked, like what Psalm 94 talks about. We've obeyed government instead of God. And the most urgent thing now is repentance in the church. I wasn't expecting us to go down this angle, but I'm enjoying this. You mentioned about not forsaking Hebrews 10, 25. It said, not giving up meeting together as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another and all the more as you see the day approaching. And how much closer are we to that day 2,000 years later? And there's no opt-out. The Bible is full of laws, of ideals, of examples, of guidelines for us to live by because God knows best because God made us, and therefore he's the one that knows the best way to live. There are no opt-outs. And certainly I remember being in one church, Church of England Church, and they said, oh, we need to wait until the government announce their guidelines later this week to know if we can meet and sing in the park this weekend. I think, well, we've already been told not to forsake gathering. What's wrong with meeting out in the open? I mean, Jesus didn't stop going and speaking in synagogues because people had leprosy. Actually, no, he went there. And there were so few. I think in the UK, I don't know of any church that actually, there was one church that had a legal fight, but they still shut the doors. I know I went to a big event with a Pentecostal preacher, Rodney Howard Brown. He was the only person, I mean, the first pastor in America. And it was interesting that the more traditional evangelical part of the church said, we need to be good citizens, and that means doing what we're told to do. Then you have the more Pentecostal or charismatic said, no, no, no, the Bible says this, so we do this. I was interested in seeing that division. But certainly, I've seen hook, line, and sinker that churches across the UK accepted everything the government told us to do. And you're saying you saw exactly the same in Australia. And there's been no change of that. There's been no apology. As you said no repentance for saying we got it wrong but if this happens again we will follow god's law not man's law yeah this Is such a crucial thing, it's such a tragedy that I actually know the names globally of most of the pastors that really did stand up. John MacArthur in the U.S and I think he was in California. Arthur Polowski a Polish immigrant to Canada. Bishop Marmari in Sydney who actually since got stabbed. He survived and thankfully he's okay, but he was one of the correct, he was a Coptic, I think, no offense if I get this wrong, Bishop, but I believe he's a Coptic or an Orthodox Christian and was really speaking up. There was a Catholic church in Jindera that was really good in a remote Australian outback sort of town. But these are the exceptions, right? I shouldn't be able to name the ones that stood up and did the right thing. When I challenged my own pastor on this, he said, Topher, I can't do what you want me to do, because the government will take away our funding for the soccer academy that we run for the migrants. Right? Now, I, I've read my Bible from cover to cover in a couple of different translations. And I, I just, I've tried, but I can't remember the verse that says, go ye into all the world and run soccer academies. I've, I'm going to have to go back and just study again and just try and find that verse because what's happened now. I mean, there's a reason why Jesus specifically warned, warned us and said, you cannot serve God and mammon. Why did he pick mammon? You can't serve God and sex. You can't serve God and bar. You can't serve, you know, God and your belly. Why did he pick mammon as the thing? Well, because that's going to be the key core temptation. And this is what we see, particularly in the established churches, because the business of church and the property and the building and the maintenance and the tithes and everything else is such an important thing. Governments have been very clever. They turned around a hundred odd years ago and said, oh, instead of you being excluded from the tax code entirely, let's give you a special charitable tax exempt status that brings you into the tax code. And then you'll be eligible for government funding for programs, for charitable stuff, right? We're doing it to help you. We're going to give you money and you can do more ministry, right? And luring churches with money into compromising and contracting with government and becoming just another civil, just another corporation, really, that just has a few special perks. Fast forward a hundred years and we get to a situation where pastors aren't willing to speak on transgenderism or abortion. Oh no, I better not talk about anything political. Oh no, I better not stand up for our right to actually worship God during a pandemic. I better not do those thing, because I'm going to lose these special privileges that the government has given me. Well, excuse me, who's your provider? What does the Bible say about that? And this is why I say, and I've ruffled a lot of feathers. I've got a lot of people's noses out of joint because I speak at the church and state conferences in Australia and elsewhere. And I challenge pastors and I challenge church guys. I'm not trying to cause damage to the church, but please hear me out. If your pastor compromised during COVID and has not repented, all right, I'm all about forgiveness, all about second chances. Is if your pastor made mistakes and then went, guys, I got that wrong. I'm so sorry. This is what I've learned. This is what I'm going to put in place to make sure I never do that again. Great. Great. All for it. But if your pastor still insists that shutting down was the right thing to do and turning away people who were in desperate need of help was the right thing to do right at a time when people needed the church the most. I mean, if your instinctive reaction when there is a threat to people's temporal lives is to lock the doors of the house that has eternal salvation, if that's your instinctive reaction, then you don't understand what it is that you do as a Christian pastor. You hold the keys to eternal life. When there is a temporal threat, when there is a pandemic, if it's the Black Death, for goodness sake, you should be throwing the doors of the church open, wheeling the speakers out onto the steps, cranking that thing up as loud as you can and saying: come one, come all, repent for your day of judgment could very well be at hand. And if you get word from the government, there's a pandemic coming and and your reaction is to shut your doors and turn people away, I put it to you that you are probably in the wrong profession. A hundred percent. We have pastors who want to be liked more than they want to do the right thing. And I'm a grew up pastor's kid. I've been involved in huge churches. And when you get to see behind the scenes, it is a desire to be liked and to do what you think the government. But it's this issue of which I think is the key issue and it's an issue that we will face here in the UK in the next five years. It's the tax exempt status. It's the charitable status, it is the money in the UK you get tax back. So, if you're a taxpayer, you give your 100 pounds to the church and then the church gets an extra 20 back. And most churches survive on that and if that was taken away they couldn't survive and this is why I've been at churches and pastors have have apologized for suggesting that abortion may be murder. They've apologized for saying that actually transgenderism may be wrong. I had a pastor who told me the way he combats the attack on sexuality is he has a bookmark in his Bible with man and woman in it. And that bookmark means that he is speaking truth. And of course, in the COVID, that's time and time again. And I can see, certainly in the UK with the Labour government, which we have a uni party, of course, it's no different than the Tory Labour Party. This is not on one side. It's the same thing. But I can see churches being told, unless you sign up to these pledges, the good citizen pledges, then you will lose your charitable status. And 99% of churches will happily sign up for the money. So you're 100% right. And this is the tragedy. So in Australia, we had a referendum recently around whether the government should redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, all right? And a lot of Christians, because the result was, yes, we should redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. And a lot of Christians said, oh, no, we lost the marriage debate. I say, well, no, no, no, hold on. We lost the marriage debate back in the 1950s when federal legislation was passed to create a federal marriage certificate. Because before then, you got a marriage certificate from your church. The government had nothing to do with marriage. And then in the 1990s, maybe early 2000s, then Prime Minister John Howard introduced legislation to introduce into the wording of the Marriage Act, man and woman. Because it didn't actually have it. It was assumed in the 1950s. They didn't have to define that in the 1950s. And then the church in the 1990s is like, yes, yes, yes, we've won. No, no. What we've said, what we've done is we've taken a sacred institution, marriage, and we've put it under a secular governance now. We've said this thing that God created can now be defined and redefined by government. I don't care whether you like the government's definition right now or not, the minute you concede to them the power to have a definition, then you've lost. And sure enough, 30 years later, there was a referendum and the definition was changed and all these Christians are like, oh no, we've lost the marriage debate. No, you lost that in the 1950s. We need to stop taking things that are sacred and putting them into the hands of secular governments. That is idolatry. We are worshipping government and it has to stop. Have you always been, I mean, from the beginning focused on the church being engaged and involved in society, because I think a lot of people have seen the collapse of the church during Covid, but then you go back further and you see at separate points in history of each of our countries you see the capitulation of the church to state mandates in varying degrees. But I've, it's you kind of, we've seen it very starkly with, we all thought, we all believed, actually, the state will not stop churches meeting. That'll be the last, you know, they may come in on what we believe on doctrine issues, on the culture wars, but actually, we'll still be allowed to meet on Sunday, so it's all good. And suddenly, that key right for Christians to gather together, share fellowship together, that's now taken away. Has that been partially the the last straw in people's engagements. I mean, how have you seen it in your involvement along that journey? Yeah, I'm going to answer something else before I answer your actual question. Let's stop and think for a moment what a low bar that is to set. Oh, at least the church allows us to meet. Well, the church in China is allowed to meet, right? You can be a Christian in the UK and in Australia and in Canada in exactly the same way that you can be a Christian in China. Just don't say the things that the government says you can't say. Your doctrine just has to to be the government approved doctrine. And then you can be a Christian. You can show up to church, you can wear a cross, you can call yourself a pastor, as long as you only preach the things that the government has approved. Look at how low we've already set the bar and what a terrible compromise that is. To your question, I was raised as a, I'm a pastor's kid. I'm actually, I'm a pastor's grandkid on both my mom and my dad's side. Both of them were pastors. My dad was a pastor, was raised in the church, of course, went through my phase of rebellion and trying to figure out what I actually believe, blah, blah, blah. And then I tried to prove that God didn't exist and I failed miserably. So, I've had to accept that he actually is real. And that the best thing I can do with my life is to pursue him. And as imperfect as I am and as flawed as I am and as a million different ways that I stumble, that's my life mission now. But I considered myself a political commentator. And then over time, I began to realize you can't, there's so many problems in politics that you can't fix without reference to faith, without reference to the underlying values, that inform political policy. So, I started to call myself a political commentator who's a Christian or, you know, a Christian political commentator. And I'm starting to realize, actually, I just need to drop the word political. And I think I'm actually, I actually just need to say, no, I'm a Christian commentator. And because that faith, what you believe about God informs what you believe about everything else. It involves culture. It involves politics. It involves commerce and employment and healthcare and anything you might want to commentate on is downstream of your belief in God. And so all I am is a guy to drive forklifts, who made a video, who somehow people found my work and said, hey, you keep talking. And now as I've pursued that, I've come to realize the most important thing that I can talk about, the most valuable thing that I can be talking about is faith and God and how best we live in a fallen world. And that's essentially the mission that I've set out to do. So that's why Good People Break Bad Laws is my first book is becoming Good Christians Break Bad Laws as my second book is the realization that I have to talk about the faith side of this, not to the exclusion of the politics. The politics does matter. The culture stuff does matter. But it's all informed by what you believe about God. And that's ultimately where the truth lies. And that's what we need to be talking about. Last question is in terms of you kind of don't think of Australia as being a out-and-out Christian country. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Never been down under, so I could be 100% wrong. But are we moving towards a church that is that is underground, a church that actually needs to separate itself from the state in a way that we haven't seen? I mean we have a we have a state church in the UK: church of England. And that's meant that the state have had 100 control and we now have 24 bishops in the lords that are wetter than any pathetic liberal you'll come across and are more concerned about environmental issues and plastic bags than they are actually about God and his position in society. Do you think in Australia you're moving towards actually the church will have to be underground and fairly separate? I think we were headed that way, but I think God is on the move. And I'm going to shamelessly name drop for a moment. Tucker Carlson was in Melbourne recently, and he met with me backstage. My wife and I chatted with him for about 25 minutes. Lovely, gracious man. I was very generous with his time. And we talked mostly about God. That was the number one thing that he and I, that we discussed. And he commented on how dark Melbourne felt spiritually compared to the rest of Australia. And he's absolutely right. Melbourne is a broken city, and there's a spiritual oppression, a spiritual aspect to it. But he also said, do you feel like God's doing something? I said, yes, thank you. We're not the only ones. And all over the place, I'm seeing what gives me huge encouragement is all over the place, including in my own personal faith walk, I'm seeing God calling people to prayer in a new and a fresh and a more powerful way than has been the case since probably the charismatic renewal. And prayer almost always precedes revival. Find me a revival that didn't have an enormous amount of prayer invested into it before it happened. I don't think there is one. And I believe that we're in a phase now where God is calling people to prayer and faithful people, the genuine Christians, the ones who aren't compromising, are coming to prayer. And yes, a lot of the church is falling into apostasy. A lot of the church is walking away from the basic fundamental tenets of the Christian faith and becoming more concerned about social justice and all this sort of stuff. And there will be a split. There will be a bifurcation. But I actually think there's going to be an enormous renewal and an enormous number of people who are just seeking the truth, seeking meaning, recognizing the meaninglessness of third wave feminism, culture war and politics and so much of this stuff, sport, money, all the rest of it. The meaninglessness is becoming really clear for a lot of people now. I think we're actually about to see an enormous revival where an enormous number of people are going to have a come to Jesus moment in the most real and literal sense. Yeah, 100%. I agree with you. And when it gets dark, it's time for the light of Christ to shine brightly. So, we are in that moment, certainly. Topher, really appreciate you coming on all the way over from down under. Thank you so much for your time, sharing a little bit about your story and fascinating how you see the church getting engaged, involved, and where that... Your book, you can obviously get as an e-book, you can get as a paperback. It's available here in the UK. As it will be down under. I'm sure it's available in the US. And Battleground Melbourne, what's the website again? So, the website for the book is goodpeoplebreakbadlaws.com. You can order it from Australia along with shirts and hoodies and things like that. Or you can go to Amazon and get it, and it'll just get printed in your local market, and you'll receive it that way. Or you can get an e-book, like you said. You can go to battlegroundmelbourne.com. Now, Battleground Melbourne is my multi-award winning documentary. It's an hour and 40 minutes long. It's a feature-length documentary. It's very high quality. It's won 14 awards around the world, and it tells the story of what happened in Melbourne at the most locked down city in the world. You can watch it for free. I don't need your money I don't even need your email address. Just go to battlegroundmelbourne.com. It's there. You can watch it. I highly recommend everyone do that. You will be shocked. Even people that lived through it in Melbourne but didn't step outside of their homes, they just did what they were told, they watch it and they're shocked at what happened on the streets of their own city on the other side of that door. And for people in London or around the world, the US, etcetera, I think it's worth seeing because this isn't unique to Australia. This is something that our governments all over the world, including in the US, would have loved to have done if they thought they could get away with it. And it's up to us to make sure that they know that they can't. 100 percent. Topher, thank you for joining us. And all the links for those are in the description. However, you're watching or listening to the podcasting apps. It will be all there in description, just click on and you can get the book, you can watch the film and everything is there. So don't for thanks for your time. Such a pleasure Peter. Thank you.

⭐⭐⭐⭐ /  

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

As the Pope apologises for using a homophobic slur, we hear from an openly gay priest, Fr James Alison, who claims that in the Catholic Church a majority of the clergy is homosexual. We also hear the views of the Pope's biographer, Austen Ivereigh.Ahead of commemorations marking the 80th anniversary of the Normandy landings, the historian Sarah Meyrick tells us about the men who went ashore unarmed – the D-Day chaplains. Over 60% of Muslim women in the UK have not had their marriages legalised under UK law, leaving them vulnerable and unprotected in the event of a divorce. Solicitor and family law specialist, Aina Khan joins us to discuss a petition to reform the 1949 Marriage Act, that she says is not ‘Fit For Purpose'. Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra voices his thoughts on how much responsibility should lie with Imams like himself.‘Birthmarked', a play currently on tour in the UK, tells of the complexities of "disfellowship" from the Jehovah's Witnesses. Playwright and actor Brook Tate explains how going against biblical teaching – by being actively gay - forced him out. He tells us how the play has helped him to reconcile his feelings towards the family, friends and religion he left behind.Presenter: Rima Ahmed Producers: Alexa Good and Bara'atu Ibrahim Editor: Jonathan Hallewell

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.

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.

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.

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.

In November of 1984 my parents threw an Election Night party. I still remember the little elephants on the cocktail napkins. I was five years old and understood nothing about politics, but I knew that Ronald Reagan was president, that he was about to be for four more years, and that this was both inevitable and very good. It is odd now to think of the outcome of a presidential election being a foregone conclusion, but it was. In 1984, Reagan carried all but one state and the District of Columbia in what is still the largest electoral landslide in modern history. Moments like this implanted within me not only a strong political identity, but also a sense of clarity and certainty: My family's guy was the good guy, he led the right team, he would win obviously and convincingly, and we would celebrate. When my dad came out of the closet as gay in 1992, he remained a Republican - as he would until his death in 2006. When questioned over the years about his political loyalty he would point out, correctly, that neither major party had at the time a pro-gay platform, that it was Democrat Bill Clinton who signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell policies, and that since he wasn't going to get any real recognition from either party, he might as well vote for the candidate that best represented his other beliefs. His gay friends in particular were not persuaded by this argument. For what it was worth, neither was I. I was not interested in complexity - or compromise. I have always been a more difficult and idealistic person than he was. So I was excited in high school when my likewise contrarian brother introduced me to libertarianism.Want to support our podcast?Give Here https://redeemercincy.tpsdb.com/Give/podcast

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

On this week's episode of Currently Reading, Meredith and Kaytee are joined by Mary and Roxanna and are discussing: Would You Rather: it's a game. it's bookish. it's fun! As per usual, time-stamped show notes are below with references to every book and resource we mentioned in this episode. If you'd like to listen first and not spoil the surprise, don't scroll down!  We are now including transcripts of the episode (this link only works on the main site). The goal here is to increase accessibility for our fans! *Please note that all book titles linked below are Bookshop affiliate links. Your cost is the same, but a small portion of your purchase will come back to us to help offset the costs of the show. If you'd prefer to shop on Amazon, you can still do so here through our main storefront. Anything you buy there (even your laundry detergent, if you recently got obsessed with switching up your laundry game) kicks a small amount back to us. Thanks for your support!*   . . . .   2:16 - Would you rather read a really great, interesting page turning book that you've been waiting for, with your whole family in the same room at the same time? Or would you rather read a boring book that you're really not into, but you're alone in your room? 6:28 - Fourth Wing by Rebecca Yarros 6:32 - Would you rather be allowed to only read mediocre ACOTAR fanfic within the fantasy genre or have to give up fantasy entirely? 6:36 - A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Maas 8:20 - Would you rather have a super spicy romance with a cheesy cover sitting in your office where clients can see it, or have a super spicy audiobook go off while in a playgroup with Charlotte? 10:15 - The Dragon's Bride by Katee Robert 11:01 - Would you rather you and I (Meredith and Roxanna) be able to continue to buddy read together for the rest of our lives until we're old and gray? Or would you rather us live down the street from each other, but we could never talk about books again. 12:22 - Would you rather have to listen to romance in your ears, all romance all the time in your ears. Or you have to play the most graphic scenes of your murdery books out loud through speakers in public while you walk around the neighborhood? 14:10 - Would you rather only listen to audiobooks at one speed for the rest of your life or never listen to audiobooks again?  16:08 - Would you rather your children, be entirely suggestible with regard to their reading or your reading partner Meredith, be entirely suggestible with regard to her reading? 18:11 - Would you rather never be allowed to keep a book on your shelves, Libraries are immediate read and pass on only or be allowed to keep whatever books you'd like on your shelves, but never be allowed to organize or categorize them in any way?  19:46 - Would you rather have to reread your least favorite book every month or never read your favorite book ever again? 20:29 - Me Before You by Jojo Moyes 20:40 - Blink by Malcolm Gladwell 20:41 - The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell 20:43 - Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell 20:57 - Talking to Strangers by Malcolm Gladwell 21:23 - The Shell Seekers by Rosamunde Pilcher 21:48 - Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad 21:53 - Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier 22:04 - Everything I Never Told You by Celeste Ng 22:16 - Survive the Night by Riley Sager 22:59 - Would you rather never have to wait for the release of a book again or would you want to always have the opportunity to meet your favorite author in person and have a real conversation with them? 24:36 - Fourth Wing by Rebecca Yarros 25:23 - State of Terror by Hillary Clinton and Louise Penny 27:19 - Emily Wilde's Encyclopaedia of Faeries by Heather Fawcett 27:19 - Emily Wilde's Map of the Otherlands by Heather Fawcett (Pre-order link) 27:43 - Legends and Lattes by Travis Baldree 28:25 - Would you rather never get to read in the hammock again or never get to read in front of a crackling fire again? 30:28 - Would you rather be a writer who wrote an amazing debut, but then had a sophomore slump or would you rather be a writer who wrote a breakout first book, had an amazing follow up and every book has been better than the last… but each book features a mythical creature with two peens? 32:53 - Would you want to be an author that puts out one incredible book that wins all the prizes, but it's also a commercial success, or would you rather be an author that writes a very beloved and well selling series, but has a much smaller, beloved, but smaller audience? 37:43 - Who is Maud Dixon by Alexandra Andrews 38:25 - Would you rather read in an isolated cabin with no fireplace? And it's very drafty and there might be spiders or would you rather read in a very noisy coffee shop with bad music and loud conversation? 39:51 - Would you rather for the rest of your life only do buddy reads or never get to buddy read again? 41:28 - Would you rather have no food sensitivities or no reading sensitivities? (i.e. no triggers) 43:15 - Would you rather have an author crush that writes a book you hate, and you have to interview that author for Currently Reading or would you rather have an author crush who writes a book you absolutely love, but when you interview them, they're a total jerk? 46:26 - Sarah's Bookshelves Live w/John Marrs 46:36 - The Marriage Act by John Marrs 50:15 - Would you rather that reading always made you fall asleep or that you could never fall asleep while reading? 52:00 - Kindle Oasis 52:02 - Kindle Paperwhite 55:19 - Kindle Oasis CaseBot Case Connect With Us: Meredith is @meredith.reads on Instagram Kaytee is @notesonbookmarks on Instagram Mary is @maryreadsandsips on Instagram Roxanna is @roxannathereader on Instagram currentlyreadingpodcast.com @currentlyreadingpodcast on Instagram currentlyreadingpodcast@gmail.com Support us at patreon.com/currentlyreadingpodcast

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

Today we're joined by Lynn Wilder, author of Unveiling Grace: The Story of How We Found Our Way out of the Mormon Church and host of the “Unveiling Grace” podcast, who is sharing her story of finding Christ and leaving the Mormon church. We discuss her introductions to the Mormon church and what led her to not just join, but become deeply involved in Mormon community. We look at some general Mormon doctrine, such as what Mormons believe about the Bible and God's unchanging nature. Lynn shares the instances that led to the breaking down of her Mormon faith, from teaching at BYU to hearing her son's salvation story. We discuss Mormon influence over Christian homeschool curricula and media and some questions we should ask about this. Then, Lynn shares the gospel that changed her life. --- Timecodes: (01:05) Interview with Lynn begins (02:30) Upbringing and joining the LDS church (12:45) Mormon doctrine / theology (23:17) Reasons for leaving (33:07) Lynn's son is saved (40:57) John 1 (50:00) Mormons in culture (01:00:34) Deflection / "milk before meat" (01:05:58) The gospel --- Today's Sponsors: Annie's Kit Clubs — all subscriptions are month-to-month, and you can cancel anytime! Go to AnniesKitClubs.com/ALLIE and get your first month 75% off! Naturally It's Clean — visit naturallyitsclean.com/allie and use promo code "ALLIE" to receive 15% off your order. A'Del — go to adelnaturalcosmetics.com and enter promo code "ALLIE" for 25% off your first order! EdenPURE — get 3 Thunderstorm Air Purifiers for under $200 at EdenPureDeals.com, use promo code 'ALLIE'! --- Links: LDS Statement on the United States Congress Respect for Marriage Act: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/respect-for-marriage-act-statement --- Relevant Episodes: Ep 416 | Once Saved, Always Saved? | Q&A https://apple.co/3PKbI0p --- Christmas Merch: Use code ALLIE20 for 20% off the whole shop! Full collection: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey?sort_by=created-descending#MainContent --- 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 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey 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