Podcast appearances and mentions of Neil Gorsuch

Dr. Marc Siegel, physician, Professor of Medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center, author, and contributor to Fox News Topic: New COVID vaccine Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary   Topic: Hunter Biden indictment, Texas AG Ken Paxton acquitted of corruption chargesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chad Wolf, Executive Director of the America First Policy Institute and Former Acting DHS Secretary Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciarySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in New York Times v. Sullivan treating public figures to a different, more onerous standard when they were the victims of defamator falsehoods than in traditional libel cases. Recently, Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch have expressed skepticism about the constitutional infirmity of this decision. Our panelists will provide their perspectives on this decision and whether the Court should reconsider it.Featuring:Joe Cohn, Legislative and Policy Director, FIREProf. Carson Holloway, Professor of Political Science and Department Chair, University of Nebraska OmahaJered Ede, Clare LockeCarol Jean LoCicero, Managing Partner, Thomas & LoCicero, PLModerator: Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

Gordon Chang, Asia expert, columnist and author Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Morgan Ortagus, Former spokesperson for the U.S. State DepartmentSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How far can states use their local economy to put economic pressure on other states to change their policies? In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023), the Supreme Court considered this question, and had a very unusual split 5-4 with Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett in the majority. The Court rejected a […]

How far can states use their local economy to put economic pressure on other states to change their policies? In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023), the Supreme Court considered this question, and had a very unusual split 5-4 with Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett in the majority. The Court rejected a challenge to a California regulation that prohibited the in-state sale of pork which was previously out-of-state “confined in a cruel manner.”This panel will discuss the decision and the originalist foundations, if any, of the dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Additionally, even if it properly exists, what is its extent and the impact of the Court's decision?

 Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: Fani Willis, Hunter Biden special counsel, Trump protective order Councilman Joe Borelli, Minority Leader of the New York City Council & the author of "Staten Island in the Nineteenth Century: From Boomtown to Forgotten Borough" Topic: Migrant crisis in New YorkSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In today's show Attorney Andrew Branca begins a reading of part 7 of 7 of the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen.  This part 6 of the reading of Bruen covers the second half of the dissenting opinion written by Justice Breyer, with Justices Kagan and Sotomayor concurring.Bruen is the seminal 2022 Supreme Court decision written by the Justice Clarence Thomas extending Heller's (2008) holding that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right to apply to FEDERAL government, as well as McDonald's (2010) holding that the 2A right also applied to the STATES, to hold that the 2A also protected the right to keep and bear arms outside the home, in public.As a result, the New York state law requiring a showing a special need for public carry of a firearm that was challenged by NYSRPA was ruled unconstitutional, thus rendering essentially all "may issue" concealed carry regimes unconstitutional.This reading of Bruen is the entirety of the decision, both majority by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch, as well as concurrences by Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Alito,and also the dissent by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. (Bruen was a 6 to 3 decision.)As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.Prior this starting this reading of Bruen I had already read the 2008 US Supreme Court majority decision of Heller (which found that the 2A was an INDIVIDUAL right with respect ot the FEDERAL government), as well as the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of McDonald (which found that the 2A also applied to the STATES).You can read the entirety the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision here:lawofselfdefense.com/bruenEnjoy! #BruenBecome a Law of Self Defense Member for JUST 99 CENTS!Not yet a Law of Self Defense Member? WHY NOT? Try our two-week trial membership, unlimited access to our show content, for just 99¢! Stay a member after that and it's still just ~30¢ a day, less than $10 a month! Get the 99¢ trial membership by clicking on the image or link below:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trialBecome a Platinum Member for ONLY 82 CENTS A DAY!PLUS get EVERY class & book we offer, for FREE!We ONLY consult on legal cases for our Platinum members!BE HARD TO CONVICT, become a Law of Self Defense Platinum member TODAY!http://lawofselfdefense.com/82centsAMERICAN LAW COURSESGet a law-school level education in typical first-year (1L) law classes, including criminal law, constitutional law, evidence, property, and more, at a fraction of the cost and time of law school, and without any of the political toxicity of today's law schools. Spring semester starts soon with Constitutional Law!Learn more at: americanlawcourses.comamericanlawcourses.com/conlawLAW CARDS!https://www.lawofselfdefense.com/lawcardsSUBSCRIBE TO our STANDARD long

In today's show Attorney Andrew Branca begins a reading of part 6 of 7 of the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen.  This part 6 of the reading of Bruen covers the first half of the dissenting opinion written by Justice Breyer, with Justices Kagan and Sotomayor concurring.Bruen is the seminal 2022 Supreme Court decision written by the Justice Clarence Thomas extending Heller's (2008) holding that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right to apply to FEDERAL government, as well as McDonald's (2010) holding that the 2A right also applied to the STATES, to hold that the 2A also protected the right to keep and bear arms outside the home, in public.As a result, the New York state law requiring a showing a special need for public carry of a firearm that was challenged by NYSRPA was ruled unconstitutional, thus rendering essentially all "may issue" concealed carry regimes unconstitutional.This reading of Bruen is the entirety of the decision, both majority by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch, as well as concurrences by Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Alito,and also the dissent by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. (Bruen was a 6 to 3 decision.)As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.Prior this starting this reading of Bruen I had already read the 2008 US Supreme Court majority decision of Heller (which found that the 2A was an INDIVIDUAL right with respect ot the FEDERAL government), as well as the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of McDonald (which found that the 2A also applied to the STATES).You can read the entirety the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision here:lawofselfdefense.com/bruenEnjoy! #BruenBecome a Law of Self Defense Member for JUST 99 CENTS!Not yet a Law of Self Defense Member? WHY NOT? Try our two-week trial membership, unlimited access to our show content, for just 99¢! Stay a member after that and it's still just ~30¢ a day, less than $10 a month! Get the 99¢ trial membership by clicking on the image or link below:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trialBecome a Platinum Member for ONLY 82 CENTS A DAY!PLUS get EVERY class & book we offer, for FREE!We ONLY consult on legal cases for our Platinum members!BE HARD TO CONVICT, become a Law of Self Defense Platinum member TODAY!http://lawofselfdefense.com/82centsAMERICAN LAW COURSESGet a law-school level education in typical first-year (1L) law classes, including criminal law, constitutional law, evidence, property, and more, at a fraction of the cost and time of law school, and without any of the political toxicity of today's law schools. Spring semester starts soon with Constitutional Law!Learn more at: americanlawcourses.comamericanlawcourses.com/conlawLAW CARDS!https://www.lawofselfdefense.com/lawcardsSUBSCRIBE TO our STANDARD long-

Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: Trump arraignment  Gordon Chang, Asia expert, columnist and author Topic: China replacing nuclear leadership Nicholas DeMauro, Executive Director & Chief Executive Officer of L.E.A.D. (Law Enforcement Against Drugs) and the host of "Battling Drugs and Violence with the L.E.A.D Guy" airing Saturdays at noon on AM 970 The Answer Topic: L.E.A.D. Building Safer Communities Gala Honoring Scott Sibella, President and CEO of Resorts World in Las Vegas  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In today's show Attorney Andrew Branca begins a reading of part 5 of 7 of the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen.  This part 5 of the reading of Bruen covers the concurrence opinions by Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.Bruen is the seminal 2022 Supreme Court decision written by the Justice Clarence Thomas extending Heller's (2008) holding that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right to apply to FEDERAL government, as well as McDonald's (2010) holding that the 2A right also applied to the STATES, to hold that the 2A also protected the right to keep and bear arms outside the home, in public.As a result, the New York state law requiring a showing a special need for public carry of a firearm that was challenged by NYSRPA was ruled unconstitutional, thus rendering essentially all "may issue" concealed carry regimes unconstitutional.This reading of Bruen is the entirety of the decision, both majority by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch, as well as concurrences by Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Alito,and also the dissent by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. (Bruen was a 6 to 3 decision.)As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.Prior this starting this reading of Bruen I had already read the 2008 US Supreme Court majority decision of Heller (which found that the 2A was an INDIVIDUAL right with respect ot the FEDERAL government), as well as the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of McDonald (which found that the 2A also applied to the STATES).You can read the entirety the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision here:lawofselfdefense.com/bruenEnjoy! #BruenBecome a Law of Self Defense Member for JUST 99 CENTS!Not yet a Law of Self Defense Member? WHY NOT? Try our two-week trial membership, unlimited access to our show content, for just 99¢! Stay a member after that and it's still just ~30¢ a day, less than $10 a month! Get the 99¢ trial membership by clicking on the image or link below:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trialBecome a Platinum Member for ONLY 82 CENTS A DAY!PLUS get EVERY class & book we offer, for FREE!We ONLY consult on legal cases for our Platinum members!BE HARD TO CONVICT, become a Law of Self Defense Platinum member TODAY!http://lawofselfdefense.com/82centsAMERICAN LAW COURSESGet a law-school level education in typical first-year (1L) law classes, including criminal law, constitutional law, evidence, property, and more, at a fraction of the cost and time of law school, and without any of the political toxicity of today's law schools. Spring semester starts soon with Constitutional Law!Learn more at: americanlawcourses.comamericanlawcourses.com/conlawLAW CARDS!https://www.lawofselfdefense.com/lawcardsSUBSCRIBE TO our STANDARD long-form YouTube channel:"Law of

In its most recent term, the United States Supreme Court strengthened free speech by ruling that business owners cannot be punished for expression consistent with their deeply held beliefs and by ruling that affirmative action practices in college admissions violates the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination. All this on the heels of the landmark decision in the Dobbs case, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the issue of abortion law to the states. Again, unsurprisingly, the Court is being accused of replacing justice and the Constitution with partisan politics by pundits who decry the Court's conservative bias.  However, contrary to the critics, the Supreme Court's record reflects more of a broad consensus than partisan politics. Despite the dramatic ideological diversion of the administrations that appointed the Justices, almost half of the cases decided by the Court each term are unanimous. Though there are certainly outlier years, this was not one of them, and the trend lines have been fairly consistent since the 1950s.  Many critics argue that last year marked the end of the Supreme Court's “consensus,” pointing to the strong ideological divides on decisions like Dobbs, Carson v. Makin, and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. After all, just 29% of the rulings were unanimous for the 2021-2022 term. 46% of the decisions, however, were ones in which at least eight of the nine justices ruled in agreement. That can hardly be considered a divided court.   During the 2022-2023 term, only six of the 57 cases considered were decided along ideological lines. Twenty-seven of the rulings, about 47%, were unanimous, and over half, 56%, were decided with eight of the nine members again in agreement. Even the New York Times didn't totally misrepresent the reality of these numbers. Of the 12 cases featured in an article summarizing the most recent Supreme Court term, only a third were decided along ideological lines.  This year, in fact, a number of rulings featured unexpected alliances and disagreements. In one majority opinion and three concurring opinions, Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch and Biden-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson were in agreement, favoring limits on government power. In a recent case regarding the artwork of Andy Warhol, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—appointed by the same administration and both considered progressive—were in strong disagreement with one another.   The willingness of Justices to work together often extends beyond the courtroom and can even result in cultivated friendships. The conservative iconic justice Antonin Scalia famously shared a friendship (and even vacationed) with progressive iconic justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. On the current court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Clarence Thomas have cultivated a beautiful friendship despite their significant ideological differences. In her own words, Justice Sotomayor has “probably disagreed with [Justice Thomas] more than any other justice” but maintains a friendship with him because she considers him a “man who cares deeply about the court as an institution—about the people who work here.”  The current Court consists of justices appointed by four different administrations, two progressive and two conservative. Still, a general consensus remains. Whatever ideological fault lines exist within the Court are not always determinative of its rulings, as evidenced even in its past two terms. In other words, members of the Court have deep disagreements, but it should not be considered irredeemably partisan.   Often, those who bemoan the current state of the Court, consider it illegitimate, and call it a failed institution, only betray their own philosophical commitments. Namely, they have embraced a postmodern view of law and of the courts, which assumes that “to judge is an exercise of power,” not an exercise in the interpretation and application of the law. Thus, they cannot imagine that a ruling they do not like could be legitimate.  In contrast, we can be assured by the relevant facts that the recent legal victories for life and liberty are not the products of the Court's corruption but a genuine realization of justice for the nation.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Jared Eckert. If you enjoy Breakpoint, leave a review on your favorite podcast app. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

In today's show Attorney Andrew Branca begins a reading of part 4 of 7 of the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen.Bruen is the seminal 2022 Supreme Court decision written by the Justice Clarence Thomas extending Heller's (2008) holding that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right to apply to FEDERAL government, as well as McDonald's (2010) holding that the 2A right also applied to the STATES, to hold that the 2A also protected the right to keep and bear arms outside the home, in public.As a result, the New York state law requiring a showing a special need for public carry of a firearm that was challenged by NYSRPA was ruled unconstitutional, thus rendering essentially all "may issue" concealed carry regimes unconstitutional.This reading of Bruen is the entirety of the decision, both majority by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch, as well as concurrences by Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Alito,and also the dissent by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. (Bruen was a 6 to 3 decision.)As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.Prior this starting this reading of Bruen I had already read the 2008 US Supreme Court majority decision of Heller (which found that the 2A was an INDIVIDUAL right with respect ot the FEDERAL government), as well as the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of McDonald (which found that the 2A also applied to the STATES).You can read the entirety the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision here:lawofselfdefense.com/bruenEnjoy! #BruenBecome a Law of Self Defense Member for JUST 99 CENTS!Not yet a Law of Self Defense Member? WHY NOT? Try our two-week trial membership, unlimited access to our show content, for just 99¢! Stay a member after that and it's still just ~30¢ a day, less than $10 a month! Get the 99¢ trial membership by clicking on the image or link below:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trialBecome a Platinum Member for ONLY 82 CENTS A DAY!PLUS get EVERY class & book we offer, for FREE!We ONLY consult on legal cases for our Platinum members!BE HARD TO CONVICT, become a Law of Self Defense Platinum member TODAY!http://lawofselfdefense.com/82centsAMERICAN LAW COURSESGet a law-school level education in typical first-year (1L) law classes, including criminal law, constitutional law, evidence, property, and more, at a fraction of the cost and time of law school, and without any of the political toxicity of today's law schools. Spring semester starts soon with Constitutional Law!Learn more at: americanlawcourses.comamericanlawcourses.com/conlawLAW CARDS!https://www.lawofselfdefense.com/lawcardsSUBSCRIBE TO our STANDARD long-form YouTube channel:"Law of Self Defense"https://youtube.com/lawofselfdefenseFREE BOOK! “The&

In today's show Attorney Andrew Branca begins a reading of part 3 of 7 of the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen.Bruen is the seminal 2022 Supreme Court decision written by the Justice Clarence Thomas extending Heller's (2008) holding that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right to apply to FEDERAL government, as well as McDonald's (2010) holding that the 2A right also applied to the STATES, to hold that the 2A also protected the right to keep and bear arms outside the home, in public.As a result, the New York state law requiring a showing a special need for public carry of a firearm that was challenged by NYSRPA was ruled unconstitutional, thus rendering essentially all "may issue" concealed carry regimes unconstitutional.This reading of Bruen is the entirety of the decision, both majority by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch, as well as concurrences by Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Alito,and also the dissent by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. (Bruen was a 6 to 3 decision.)As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.Prior this starting this reading of Bruen I had already read the 2008 US Supreme Court majority decision of Heller (which found that the 2A was an INDIVIDUAL right with respect ot the FEDERAL government), as well as the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of McDonald (which found that the 2A also applied to the STATES).You can read the entirety the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision here:lawofselfdefense.com/bruenEnjoy! #BruenBecome a Law of Self Defense Member for JUST 99 CENTS!Not yet a Law of Self Defense Member? WHY NOT? Try our two-week trial membership, unlimited access to our show content, for just 99¢! Stay a member after that and it's still just ~30¢ a day, less than $10 a month! Get the 99¢ trial membership by clicking on the image or link below:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trialBecome a Platinum Member for ONLY 82 CENTS A DAY!PLUS get EVERY class & book we offer, for FREE!We ONLY consult on legal cases for our Platinum members!BE HARD TO CONVICT, become a Law of Self Defense Platinum member TODAY!http://lawofselfdefense.com/82centsAMERICAN LAW COURSESGet a law-school level education in typical first-year (1L) law classes, including criminal law, constitutional law, evidence, property, and more, at a fraction of the cost and time of law school, and without any of the political toxicity of today's law schools. Spring semester starts soon with Constitutional Law!Learn more at: americanlawcourses.comamericanlawcourses.com/conlawLAW CARDS!https://www.lawofselfdefense.com/lawcardsSUBSCRIBE TO our STANDARD long-form YouTube channel:"Law of Self Defense"https://youtube.com/lawofselfdefenseFREE BOOK! “The&

In today's show Attorney Andrew Branca begins a reading of part 2 of 7 of the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen.Bruen is the seminal 2022 Supreme Court decision written by the Justice Clarence Thomas extending Heller's (2008) holding that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right to apply to FEDERAL government, as well as McDonald's (2010) holding that the 2A right also applied to the STATES, to hold that the 2A also protected the right to keep and bear arms outside the home, in public.As a result, the New York state law requiring a showing a special need for public carry of a firearm that was challenged by NYSRPA was ruled unconstitutional, thus rendering essentially all "may issue" concealed carry regimes unconstitutional.This reading of Bruen is the entirety of the decision, both majority by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch, as well as concurrences by Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Alito,and also the dissent by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. (Bruen was a 6 to 3 decision.)As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.Prior this starting this reading of Bruen I had already read the 2008 US Supreme Court majority decision of Heller (which found that the 2A was an INDIVIDUAL right with respect ot the FEDERAL government), as well as the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of McDonald (which found that the 2A also applied to the STATES).You can read the entirety the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision here:lawofselfdefense.com/bruenEnjoy! #BruenBecome a Law of Self Defense Member for JUST 99 CENTS!Not yet a Law of Self Defense Member? WHY NOT? Try our two-week trial membership, unlimited access to our show content, for just 99¢! Stay a member after that and it's still just ~30¢ a day, less than $10 a month! Get the 99¢ trial membership by clicking on the image or link below:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trialBecome a Platinum Member for ONLY 82 CENTS A DAY!PLUS get EVERY class & book we offer, for FREE!We ONLY consult on legal cases for our Platinum members!BE HARD TO CONVICT, become a Law of Self Defense Platinum member TODAY!http://lawofselfdefense.com/82centsAMERICAN LAW COURSESGet a law-school level education in typical first-year (1L) law classes, including criminal law, constitutional law, evidence, property, and more, at a fraction of the cost and time of law school, and without any of the political toxicity of today's law schools. Spring semester starts soon with Constitutional Law!Learn more at: americanlawcourses.comamericanlawcourses.com/conlawLAW CARDS!https://www.lawofselfdefense.com/lawcardsSUBSCRIBE TO our STANDARD long-form YouTube channel:"Law of Self Defense"https://youtube.com/lawofselfdefenseFREE BOOK! “The&

In today's show Attorney Andrew Branca begins a reading of part 1 of 7 of the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. Bruen.Bruen is the seminal 2022 Supreme Court decision written by the Justice Clarence Thomas extending Heller's (2008) holding that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual right to apply to FEDERAL government, as well as McDonald's (2010) holding that the 2A right also applied to the STATES, to hold that the 2A also protected the right to keep and bear arms outside the home, in public.As a result, the New York state law requiring a showing a special need for public carry of a firearm that was challenged by NYSRPA was ruled unconstitutional, thus rendering essentially all "may issue" concealed carry regimes unconstitutional.This reading of Bruen is the entirety of the decision, both majority by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch, as well as concurrences by Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Alito,and also the dissent by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. (Bruen was a 6 to 3 decision.)As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.As a result, this very lengthy reading is divided into seven manageable portions--the first four of which are Justice Thomas' majority opinion.Prior this starting this reading of Bruen I had already read the 2008 US Supreme Court majority decision of Heller (which found that the 2A was an INDIVIDUAL right with respect ot the FEDERAL government), as well as the 2010 US Supreme Court decision of McDonald (which found that the 2A also applied to the STATES).You can read the entirety the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision here:lawofselfdefense.com/bruenEnjoy! #BruenBecome a Law of Self Defense Member for JUST 99 CENTS!Not yet a Law of Self Defense Member? WHY NOT? Try our two-week trial membership, unlimited access to our show content, for just 99¢! Stay a member after that and it's still just ~30¢ a day, less than $10 a month! Get the 99¢ trial membership by clicking on the image or link below:https://lawofselfdefense.com/trialBecome a Platinum Member for ONLY 82 CENTS A DAY!PLUS get EVERY class & book we offer, for FREE!We ONLY consult on legal cases for our Platinum members!BE HARD TO CONVICT, become a Law of Self Defense Platinum member TODAY!http://lawofselfdefense.com/82centsAMERICAN LAW COURSESGet a law-school level education in typical first-year (1L) law classes, including criminal law, constitutional law, evidence, property, and more, at a fraction of the cost and time of law school, and without any of the political toxicity of today's law schools. Spring semester starts soon with Constitutional Law!Learn more at: americanlawcourses.comamericanlawcourses.com/conlawLAW CARDS!https://www.lawofselfdefense.com/lawcardsSUBSCRIBE TO our STANDARD long-form YouTube channel:"Law of Self Defense"https://youtube.com/lawofselfdefenseFREE BOOK! “The

Dr. Nicole Saphier, board-certified radiologist, medical contributor for Fox News, and author of the book “Make America Healthy Again” Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Jonathan Hoenig,  portfolio manager at Capitalist Pig Hedge Fund LLC and a Fox News ContributorSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One of the most biggest recent case is the split decision out of the 9th Circuit holding that a prohibition on secretly recording communications between two people violates the First Amendment. Project Veritas v. Schmidt, No. 22-35271 (9th Cir. July 3, 2023). The statute at issue here was an Oregon statute. But it suggests that two-party consent statutes, such as California's likewise may be unconstitutional.We also cover:Does "sexually derogatory" or "misogynistic" music in the workplace create employer liability? Possibly, says the 9th Circuit. Sharp v. S&S Activewear (9th Cir. - June 7, 2023).Justice Gorsuch's statement that COVID emergency orders are among `greatest intrusions on civil liberties.' (Statement here.)“Diversity” in the judiciary.Briefing extensions tighten up in the 9th Circuit.PJ Rubin on oral argument: "It's a very important thing to have lawyers feeling comfortable -- but not too comfortable -- in the courtroom. (Via Ben Shatz.)The citation signal “semble” that ignited #appellatetwitter.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Lowery v. Rhapsody Int'l, No. 22-15162, at *1 (9th Cir. June 7, 2023)Birke v. Lowe's Home Centers, No. S279470 (Cal. May 31, 2023).Supreme Court scores high in diversity study (via David Ettinger); Camper on Admission (via David Ettinger); Daily Journal's Malcolm Maclachlan's account of the story.Of president Biden's 30 nominees to the 9th Circuit and California district courts, 25 have attended one of six elite law schools. (Via Ben Shatz.) 10 law schools were responsible for approximately 33% of the federal clerk hires in the nation. (Also via Ben Shatz.)Speaking of Berkeley Law grad Justice Corrigan: Cancel "Berkeley?” (SoCalAppNews)City Had Right to Get Rid of Its Statue of Father Serra (via MetNews).CJEO draft formal opinion addressing whether a judicial officer may attend a celebration hosted by a law firm. (Via Ben Shatz.)Kleidman v. Court of AppealJustice Bedsworth on citing unpublish

This past term, the Supreme Court handed down two major decisions about Native American law. In Arizona v. Navajo Nation, the Court ruled 5-4 that a treaty did not require the U.S. Government to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajo Nation; and in Haaland v. Brackeen, the Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). In this episode, Native American law experts Professor Marcia Zug of the University of South Carolina Law School and Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute join to help unpack these key Native American law cases. They also dive more deeply into one specific member of the Court—Justice Neil Gorsuch—and his unique stance toward how the Constitution applies to issues relating to Native American tribes—from his dissent in Haaland, to his majority opinion in the McGirt v. Oklahoma case from 2020, and more. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Resources: Arizona v. Navajo Nation (2023) Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) Marcia Zug, “ICWA's Irony”, American Indian Law Review (2021) Tim Sandefur, Brief Amici Curiae of Goldwater Institute in Support of State of Texas and Brackeen, Haaland v. Brackeen Adam Liptak, “Justice Neil Gorsuch Is a Committed Defender of Tribal Rights”, The New York Times (June 15, 2023) John Dossett, “Justice Gorsuch and Federal Indian Law”, American Bar Association (Sept. 1, 2017) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

The Non-Prophets, Episode 22.28.1 featuring Kelley Laughlin, Kara Griffin, Helen Greene and Teo el AteoThe Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples, AP News, By Jessica Gresko, June 30, 2023 https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-website-designer-aa529361bc939c837ec2ece216b296d5 Question abound, how did such a contrived scenario get to the U.S. Supreme Court in the first place? It seems only for the purpose of allowing it to rule that you don't have to make a website for a gay couple when no one had even asked for one.Lori Smith does not even build websites yet. She said she wants to do so but her Christian faith would keep her from creating websites celebrating same-sex marriages.Things got heated up when concerns about Lori Smith's claims of supposed clients proved fruitful. One person doesn't seem to exist, and another claims to have been happily married already for well over ten years.Many predicted that this outcome based on the makeup of this court and there were a lot of people who voted in the previous presidential election specifically because they were want to roll back women and LGBTQIA+ rights and other marginalized groups.Are we seeing that effort coming to fruition? Is it okay for businesses to decide whether or not they want to provide a particular service based on their whim? It reminds one of Jim Crow laws, what else is going to be rolled back in this spiral of looking to the past for the wrong answers. Could we see religion and race used to deny services again?Justice Gorsuch who wrote in the majority opinion that the First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish not as the government demands. The statement is really telling about the narrative that is being spun. People are claiming that the government is trying to force them to tolerate the existence of queer people and this conflicts with their religious beliefs.In dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote “Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people. ... the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status.”The real issue is a large group of people in the United States think queer people are gross and that the opinion they hold is more important than anyone else's rights or legal protections. And that is very concerning

In 303 Creative vs. Elenis, the Supreme Court upheld Lorie Smith's free speech rights, deciding that the state of Colorado could not force her to produce websites for so-called same-sex weddings. Ever since, media pundits and public officials have distorted the ruling, claiming that it will allow people to refuse service to LGBT individuals. However, even the state of Colorado acknowledged that Smith serves all people with her business, but she would not provide services that meant expressing a view that violates her faith. The state made clear its intent was to suppress Smith's ideas about marriage. By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court found this a clear violation of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of expression.  The dissent in the case was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. It featured a rambling history of civil rights and public accommodation law, law that prevents discrimination of the public in services. Sotomayor argued that the decision violated the trajectory of the expansion of civil rights to more and more marginalized groups in society. She claimed that creating a website was a matter of providing a service and had nothing to do with expression, implausibly arguing that creating a website for a so-called same-sex wedding would not compel Smith's speech.  Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch dismantled the dissent, noting that the history of public accommodations and civil rights had no bearing on the matter, and that Sotomayor's argument that the question involved service rather than expression was contradicted by both the state of Colorado and the Tenth Circuit Court. He also noted how the dissent contradicted itself.  Still, the problems with Sotomayor's dissent extend beyond the issues identified by Gorsuch. When Sotomayor appealed to the murder of Matthew Shepard and the mass shooting in Orlando's Pulse Nightclub as examples of the dangers LGBT people face in the country, she was appealing to a revisionist history. The motive for Matthew Shepard's murder is at best unsettled and likely had nothing to do with his sexual orientation. The shooter at the Pulse nightclub had pledged allegiance to ISIS and apparently targeted Pulse because of its lax security.  While Sotomayor may simply have been sloppy–relying on popular rhetoric without investigating further–it is more likely that these are examples of her worldview commitments. Specifically, she employed standpoint epistemology and intersectionality, the idea that truth is ultimately unknowable so we can only rely on identity markers like race, ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation to determine what is right and wrong.   In standpoint epistemology, minorities have greater insights about the world because they know how to operate both in their own setting and in the dominant culture. This is the reasoning behind Sotomayor's infamous statement given at the University of California, Berkley before her nomination: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”  However, though Sotomayor may assume her lived experience offers a fuller view of reality, her perceptions become more authoritative to her than the facts of reality. Rather than committing to an objectivity, she can determine via cultural narratives of oppression what happened regarding Shepard's murder or the Pulse shooting, or the conflict between Lorie Smith and the state of Colorado. Even worse, the objective facts (at least those that counter the accepted narratives) in these cases can be ignored, neglected, or revised.   Since objective truth doesn't exist, justice is left to the eye of the beholder. Once, in a presentation to congressional staffers, Sotomayor was asked about the foundation of justice in our country. She replied by admitting that she had never considered the question “in that form before.” And then after a long pause said something like, “I suppose for me, it would be the inherent dignity of all people. But I don't know what it should be for anyone else” (emphasis added).  While it may be surprising that a sitting Supreme Court justice had never considered the question of justice, her response is fully consistent with her previous speech delivered at Berkley. In it, she claimed that “[t]o judge is an exercise of power,” not a matter of interpreting law. In her dissent to the majority opinion that ended affirmative action in college admissions, she accused the majority decision of “an unjustified exercise of power.” In other words, if judging is only a matter of power, no amount of facts could ever justify a decision she did not agree with.  This pair of dissents should not be viewed in a vacuum. Rather, they are based on a worldview rooted in Neo-Marxist ideas of oppression and class struggle and on postmodern ideas about knowledge and power. This is why it is important that a biblical vision of truth, justice, government, and the human person guide our thinking, not only so we can counter the false ideas shaping so much of our culture but so that we can offer a better way.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Glenn Sunshine. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org.  

Caroline Mala Corbin is a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. She teaches classes involving the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment, the Religion Clauses, the Free Speech Clause, Feminism and the First Amendment, and Reproductive Rights. Her scholarship focuses on the First Amendment's speech and religion clauses, particularly their intersection with equality issues. We spoke about the Supreme Court's recent decisions, the fear of the legal challenges that lie ahead, what could happen when non-Christians use "religious freedom" arguments in court, and more. Please support the show at https://www.patreon.com/friendlyatheistpodcast 0:00 Intro 1:36 How bad are things right now? 2:42 What was the "303 Creative" case? 7:05 Does it matter that no gay couple asked Lorie Smith to design a wedding website for them? 10:30 How worried should we be about the ruling in 303 Creative? 15:26 Can Colorado do anything to circumvent this ruling? 17:25 Should atheists or Satanists use this ruling to discriminate against Christians? 20:30 Why did Neil Gorsuch compare this case to the 1940s' Barnette case involving the Pledge of Allegiance? 28:55 How do you teach Constitutional Law when this Supreme Court continues to ignore precedent and distort existing law? 30:38: What was the Groff v. DeJoy case all about? 33:44: What does it mean that SCOTUS changed the previous minimum standard to one that requires substantial costs to a company? 42:30 What religious liberty issues are coming down the pipeline? What should we be paying attention to? 45:05 Do teachers have a First Amendment right to refuse to call students by their pronouns? Is the government controlling their speech by forcing them to acknowledge trans identities? 49:33 Why do students in Texas and Florida need their parents' permission to get out of saying the Pledge of Allegiance? 53:22 Will the expansion of "religious liberty" rights be a useful tool for non-Christians pushing for progressive interpretations of the law? 58:06 What's your prediction for the next big change to SCOTUS, barring an unexpected death? 58:53 When you meet with constitutional lawyers, what do you all talk about? Professor Corbin's website: https://people.miami.edu/profile/f8a9f100455e712842ae5c0a6ab128ff Her paper on the Pledge of Allegiance: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3941233 Her paper on whether teachers should have to use students' pronouns: https://www.journaloffreespeechlaw.org/corbin.pdf Her other papers: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=797431 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's Summer School episode from the IBI Archive is episode 23 with Heather McGhee. Heather designs and promotes solutions to inequality in America. Do you know Heather? You might know Heather. Maybe you saw her on NBC's Meet the Press, or MSNBC's “Morning Joe.” Or perhaps you saw her sparring with Republican Senator John Kennedy during the confirmation hearings of supreme court Justice Neil Gorsuch, or it just may have been that time when, while on C-Span, an older white gentleman called in to acknowledge his own racism and prejudice, and wanted Heather's advice on how to change, how to be a better American Citizen, and Heather's response went… viral. Born on the south side of Chicago, and raised in the suburbs of Evanston IL, Heather McGhee has made a career out of fighting for a more equal America. She holds a B.A. in American Studies from Yale University and a law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and for the last two decades, helped build the nonpartisan “think and do” tank, Demos, later serving as president for four years. She's argued before the Supreme Court to protect voting rights. She's helped Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz design anti-bias training for its 250,000 employees. She's lead research campaigns behind successful wage increases for low-wage workers on federal contracts as well as at Walmart and McDonalds.And that's like, 5% of her resume. But of course, Heather is so much more than her work. She's also a wife and mother of a beautiful two-year-old, who makes a small cameo in this episode. Her new book being released this week, and also partially written while carrying the aforementioned toddler, is called The Sum of Us. It unravels the mystery of how. How the wealthiest country on earth suffers some of its worst health disparities, and has a collapsing infrastructure, all while its citizens are crippled by insurmountable levels of debt. One word: Racism. And you know who actually suffers most? White people. In this episode we discuss Heather's journey into the hallowed halls of our country's government, How motherhood has changed her view of the world, what parents can do to ensure their children receive good educations, even while under lockdown, and how we ALL lose in the zero-sum game of racism. Heather's website: https://heathermcghee.comGet your copy of "The Sum of Us" here. Thank you for tuning in! Please don't forget to rate, comment, subscribe and SHARE with a friend.Visit us on IBI Digital at blackimagination.com Watch other episodes on YouTube at The Institute of Black Imagination.Connect with us on Instagram at @blackimagination

Ralph welcomes Abigail Disney, to discuss her work trying to get her namesake's company to pay their workers a fair, livable wage as told in her documentary, “The American Dream: And Other Fairy Tales.” Plus, Erica Payne cofounder of The Patriotic Millionaires and co-author of “Tax The Rich!” returns to update us on their latest work educating ordinary Americans about how they can advocate for a fairer tax system.Abigail Disney is a social activist, philanthropist, and an Emmy-winning documentary filmmaker. She is also Chair and Co-Founder of Level Forward, an ecosystem of storytellers, entrepreneurs, and social change-makers dedicated to balancing artistic vision, social impact, and stakeholder return. She also created the nonprofit Peace is Loud, which uses storytelling to advance social movements, and the Daphne Foundation, which supports organizations working for a more equitable, fair, and peaceful New York City. She is Co-Founder of Fork Films, a nonfiction media production company, which produces original documentaries and the podcast All Ears. Her latest film, which she co-directed with Kathleen Hughes, is The American Dream and Other Fairy Tales.Heirs and heiresses have gotten into a lot of trouble down the years trying to impose their will on the world. I think that my job, if I have one, is to impose the will of the world on wealthy people instead of the other way around.Abigail DisneyWe need to reinvigorate the IRS, we need to reinvigorate OSHA, we need to reinvigorate the NLRB and the other referees that have been made anemic by the constant assault of budget cuts.Abigail DisneyIt is amazing to me that, as this far rightwing guy, [Roy Disney] would never have treated his workers in a million years the way that the CEO at the time—Bob Iger, who was toying with running for president as a Democrat—was treating them on the regular. And that was the total capture of the entire American political spectrum by an idea about work and working that was the inverse—in a relatively short period of time— of what my grandfather was doing as a matter of course.Abigail DisneyErica Payne is the founder and president of Patriotic Millionaires, an organization of high-net-worth individuals that aims to restructure America's political economy to suit the needs of all Americans. Their work includes advocating for a highly progressive tax system, a livable minimum wage, and equal political representation for all citizens. She is the co-author, with Morris Pearl, of Tax the Rich: How Lies, Loopholes and Lobbyists Make the Rich Even Richer.As far as I can tell, the billionaire class bought up the entire Republican Party and a sufficient number of Democrats that they got a stranglehold on this economy. What they basically created is a system that guarantees we become more unequal more quickly over time, they destabilize the entire country, they threaten democratic capitalism around the world…Mathematically, there's absolutely no direction this country can go in other than more unequal. And we're looking at a game of economic Jenga, where we're basically pulling money out of the bottom and the middle and putting it on the top and the whole thing's in the process of collapsing.Erica PayneIf they are talking to you about something other than money, they are stealing your money. So the next time someone is talking to you about abortion, or transgender rights, or critical race theory, or any of these other things, you can rest assured that these politicians on the back end are stealing your money.Erica PayneI'm glad you mentioned Reagan, because I think liberals and progressives underestimate the gigantic impact this cruel man with a smile had on the culture with his market fundamentalism.Ralph NaderWe are excited to announce a book giveaway featuring "Tax the Rich!: How Lies, Loopholes, and Lobbyists Make the Rich Even Richer" by Erica Payne and Morris Pearl. To participate, simply click this email link and provide your full name, address (including city, state, and zip code). Please note that the giveaway is limited to one copy per person or household. We have a total of thirty books available, which will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. Act fast to secure your copy and uncover the truths behind wealth inequality. In Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeStantis1. As the reinvigorated Teamsters union engages in a massive contract renegotiation with UPS, the labor group has announced they scored a major victory – elimination of 22.4, the “two-tier” system, meaning “all drivers currently classified under the 22.4 system would be reclassified immediately to Regular Package Car Drivers, placed in seniority, and have their pay adjusted to the appropriate RPCD rate.” The two-tier system has been a central issue for organized labor in recent years, and a catalyst for the proliferation of a more militant labor movement.2. For the past six years, the Department of Energy has been attempting to clean up a “highly radioactive” spill near the Columbia River in Washington State. Now, the Tri-City Herald reports that the spill is “both deeper and broader than anticipated.” The Energy Department is already quoted saying “the soil beneath the 324 Building is so radioactively hot that it would be lethal to a worker on direct contact within two minutes.”3. Amid a slew of reactionary decisions, the Supreme Court somehow made the right call in a major case. In a 5-4 decision, led by Gorsuch, the Court ruled in Mallory v. Norfolk that “Pennsylvania's law establishing personal jurisdiction over a corporation through mandatory registration does NOT violate due process,” Mark Joseph Stern reports. The full opinion is available here.4. The membership of the Screen Actors Guild have already voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike, yet union president Fran Drescher seems to be merely using that vote as leverage to demand concessions from the studios. In response, Rolling Stone reports that over 300 actors – including household names like Meryl Streep, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and Quinta Brunson – sent a public letter urging against compromise with the studios in the face of major threats like AI. The letter ends by saying “For our union and its future, this is our moment. We hope that, on our behalf, you will meet that moment and not miss it.”5. A major new report by Good Jobs First found that major corporate polluters in Michigan have been exploiting an anti-pollution subsidy in the state for decades. Just since 2010, corporations like GM, Ford, and Stellantis have cheated the Michigan treasury of $2.2 billion. As the group notes, the first step to addressing this corporate welfare crisis is “A proper accounting of which communities are losing how much money.”6. The New York Times reports that, as a result of corrupt dealings within the Department of Education, New York City schoolchildren were fed chicken tenders containing pieces of metal and plastic. This serves as a sobering reminder of the real-world impacts of corporate capture and corruption.7. In Korea, embattled extreme Right-wing president Yoon Suk Yeol – who, among other dangerous proposals has sought to resurrect the country's nuclear weapons program – is seeking to crackdown on the country's unions. In response, the Korea Herald reports that the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions will hold two weeks of sustained strikes intended to drive Yoon from office. Between 400,000 and half a million workers are expected to participate.8. The “Greedflation” theory – which contends the recent spate of inflation is due to corporate profit seeking rather than a tight labor market – has won a major backer: the International Monetary Fund, or IMF. A new report on inflation in Europe published by the international finance agency found that profits account for no less than 45% of price rises since 2022. Import costs accounted for another 40%. This is a stunning finding for a group that typically does everything in its power to aid multinational capital.9. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has announced some major wins from the recent state legislative sessions, including defending Washington State's capital gains tax and blocking a regressive package of tax cuts in Kansas. If he were dead, Grover Norquist would be rolling in his grave. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Can Congress take away SCOTUS jurisdiction? Can states defy SCOTUS? Has SCOTUS lost its power and prestige? Is SCOTUS a political institution? Do its holdings bend to popular culture? Can universities consider race in their admissions process? No, they cannot... because the U.S. Supreme Court said so on Thursday, June 29th. Can a web designer refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages based on her First Amendment rights? Yes, she can... because the U.S. Supreme Court said so on Friday, June 30th. Can a web designer refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages based on her First Amendment rights? Yes, she can... because the U.S. Supreme Court said so on Friday, June 30th. But where does the Supreme Court get its power? And where does it get its prestige? And are the Supreme Court's power and prestige eroding? Now that everything is so polarized! Now that serious allegations of ethical misconduct have been raised about Justice Clarence Thomas, and to much lesser extent regarding Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch! To better understand this history, the history of the US Supreme Court's prestige and power, and to better understand its politics, as in, is the highest court in the land inherently a political institution? And whether or not it bends to America's popular sentiments? I spoke with Dr. Michael Klarman, who digs deeps into centuries past, going back to the Court's early years, to answer these important questions in the historical context with vivid examples and familiar stories that you thought you knew but I bet you may be surprised to learn otherwise now. I know I was surprised many times by what I learned during this conversation. For example, did you know that the U.S. Congress can take away the Supreme Court's jurisdiction on a case pending before it? A 'wow" is warranted here, right? What about separation of powers? What about our systems of checks and balances? Dr. Klarman is the Charles Warren Professor of Legal History at Harvard Law School. He has won numerous awards for his teaching and scholarship, which are primarily in the areas of Constitutional Law and Constitutional History. In 2009 he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. In 2020, he authored the Foreword to the Harvard Law Review's annual Supreme Court issue, which is titled “The Degradation of American Democracy—and the Court.” He is author of many books, including this one: The Framers' Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution, a book that was a finalist for the George Washington Book Prize. To learn more about Dr. Klarman, you can visit his academic homepage. Also, you should definitely check out my conversation with Dr. Gideon Rahat of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem about Israel's Supreme Court and Mr. Netanyahu's attempts to reform his country's judiciary. Dr. Rahat is a Senior Fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, and he draws important distinctions between Israel's democracy and ours. He talks about how integral Israel's Supreme Court is to that country's democracy because it's the only check on Israel's government. I hope you enjoy these episodes. Adel Host of the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History Behind News⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ podcast ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Click here⁠ and join⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

The Supreme Court waited until the last two days of its term to release two decisions with religious liberty implications. On this season 4 finale of the Respecting Religion podcast, Amanda and Holly look at the unanimous clarifying decision in Groff v. DeJoy and the deeply regressive decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis. They discuss the implications of both of these decisions, noting the conspicuous lack of snark in Justice Samuel Alito's Groff decision and Justice Neil Gorsuch's defensive attempt to make his big decision seem not all that remarkable. SHOW NOTES: Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The clarifying decision in Groff v. DeJoy This season, Amanda and Holly previewed the Groff v. DeJoy case in episode 17 and reviewed the oral arguments in episode 19.  Holly released this statement after the decision on June 29, which was mentioned in this article from SCOTUSblog: Justices rule in favor of evangelical postal worker. Read the decision by Justice Samuel Alito and concurrence by Justice Sonia Sotomayor at this link. For more resources, visit BJC's page on the case: BJConline.org/Groff.   Segment 2 (starting at 13:08): The problems with the 303 Creative v. Elenis decision Amanda and Holly discussed the oral arguments for 303 Creative v. Elenis in episode 8 – an episode we titled “hypotheticals, reeducation, and a preemptive claim.” Read the opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch and the dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor at this link.   Segment 3 (starting at 38:55): Saying farewell to season four Thank you to our listeners and to everyone who contributes to this program. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.  Visit our website for transcripts of episodes throughout season four: https://bjconline.org/respectingreligion/

Today we take a deep dive into the Supreme Court's recent decision in the case 303 Creative v. Elenis, which the Left falsely claims will give Christians the right to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. We set the record straight on these misconceptions, debunk some high-profile influencers' opinions on the matter, and explain why the Supreme Court made the right call in this case. And, as we bid farewell to this year's Pride Month, we have a message at the end of today's episode that reminds us that, yes, some members of the LGBTQ community are "coming for our children" and also how Christians and conservatives should react when accused of "transphobia." --- Timecodes: (00:46) Intro / merch (04:08) 303 Creative vs. Elenis (14:55) Gorsuch & Sotomayor opinions (21:25) Sharon Says So (22:59) Biden administration's response to SCOTUS rulings (26:44) 303 Creative attorney response to rulings and myths (30:03) The Mamattorney's response on affirmative action ruling (39:12) End of pride / what to say when people call you a "transphobe" --- Today's Sponsors: Cozy Earth — go to CozyEarth.com/ALLIE and use promo code 'ALLIE' at checkout to save 35% off your order! Good Ranchers — get $30 OFF your box today at GoodRanchers.com – make sure to use code 'ALLIE' when you subscribe. You'll also lock in your price for two full years with a subscription to Good Ranchers! EdenPURE — when you buy one Thunderstorm you get one FREE, this week only! Go to EdenPureDeals.com, use promo code 'ALLIE'! Carly Jean Los Angeles — use promo code 'ALLIEB' to save 25% off your first order at CarlyJeanLosAngeles.com! --- Relevant Episodes: Ep 832 | Fighting the Toxic War on Masculinity | Guest: Nancy Pearcey (Part One) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-832-fighting-the-toxic-war-on-masculinity-guest/id1359249098?i=1000619171897 Ep 833 | How Christianity Makes Men Better | Guest: Nancy Pearcey (Part Two) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-833-how-christianity-makes-men-better-guest-nancy/id1359249098?i=1000619408293 --- 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

Dr. Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon who served as the 17th United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from 2017 to 2021 and the Founder and Chairman of the American Cornerstone Institute Topic: "Good riddance to affirmative action" (Fox News op ed) Lt. Col. Oliver North, USMC [Ret], the counter-terrorism coordinator on President Reagan's NSC staff, CEO of Fidelis Publishing and Fidelis Media, and the author of "American Gulags: Marxist Tyranny in Higher Education and What to Do About It" Topic: His new book, latest in Russia-Ukraine war, China relations Mike Davis, Founder of the Article III Project, Former Law Clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Former Chief Counsel for Nominations for the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Topic: Order limiting Biden administration's contact with social media companies, SCOTUSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Michael Moore celebrates our country's birthday week by going after the Supreme Court and suggesting ways to remove the Justices who have perjured themselves, been caught talking huge sums of money from billionaires and how all six right wing Justices have committed various ethical and financial infractions — but have not been sanctioned or removed. Oh, they've also taken wholesale rights away from women, the LGBTQ+ community and people of color. Plus, they've gutted the EPA, expanded gun “rights,” and killed Biden's student loan debt relief plan. The Supreme Court is now the most disliked and distrusted government institution in the land. Michael goes over how their removal of the Roe v Wade decision has the vast majority of the country against them now. And enough of the righties on the court are worried about their “legacy” or their possible removal from the court. The more we organize against them, the better it will get. Time to rock this not-so-supreme boat. For more of Michael's work, subscribe to his Substack at MichaelMoore.com ******************** Check out these incredible pieces of investigative journalism mentioned in this episode covering the questionable ethics of our Supreme Court Justices: "Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire" (ProPublica) "⁠Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court⁠" (ProPublica) "⁠At the Supreme Court, Ethics Questions Over a Spouse's Business Ties⁠" (The New York Times) "Activist group led by Ginni Thomas received nearly $600,000 in anonymous donations" (The Washington Post) "Law firm head bought Gorsuch-owned property" (Politico) "Justices shield spouses' work from potential conflict of interest disclosures" (Politico) ******************** Music in this episode: "America the Beautiful" — instrumental piano performed by Ray Charles "America the Beautiful" — performed live by Ray Charles on the Dick Cavett Show on September 18, 1972 ******************** Episode underwriter: Get a 4-week trial, free postage, and a digital scale at https://www.stamps.com/moore. Thanks to Stamps.com for sponsoring the show! ******************** Write to Mike: mike@michaelmoore.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rumble-with-michael-moore/message

It's Monday, July 3rd, A.D. 2023. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus.  (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Afghanistan instability caused 3,700 civilian casualties Ongoing instability in Afghanistan led to 1,095 civilians killed and 2,679 wounded between August 2021 and May 2023, according to a report from the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. More than 700 of the civilian deaths were caused by improvised explosive devices occurring in public places such as mosques, education centers, and commercial markets.  The Islamic State was responsible for over 1,700 of these civilians being killed or injured. Despite the total collapse of the U.S.-backed Afghan government to Taliban forces and an attack perpetrated by ISIS-Khorasn Province that killed 13 U.S. military personnel, President Joe Biden ordered the U.S. forces to completely withdraw from Afghanistan in August 2021. France deploys 'armored military vehicles' to combat nationwide riots (Sound of machine gun fire) That's the sound of machine gun fire shot by roving immigrant gangs in France which threatens the largely unarmed French citizenry. ZeroHedge.com reports that France has deployed “Armored Military Vehicles” to combat nationwide riots. President Emmanuel Macron's government struggles to contain social unrest across the country.  French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, said overnight chaos has resulted in 2,000 cars burned, 500 buildings damaged, hundreds of businesses looted, and violent clashes with police. He said over 800 people were arrested, with nearly 250 officers injured.  A conservative Twitter account, named Amuse, tweeted, “France opened its borders to culturally diverse immigrants who have largely failed to assimilate. Frustrated, they are going to war against French society.” 17% more abortions in England and Wales According to the new official statistics by the UK Department of Health & Social Care, there were 123,219 abortions  of residents in England and Wales between January and June 2022, reports Evangelical Focus. This was a 17% increase from the same period in 2021 (105,488), and equates to over 680 abortions every day. Proverbs 31:8 reminds us to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.” American intelligence reveals more pro-abortion violence expected Rev. Jim Harden is the founder of a New York crisis pregnancy center, CompassCare, which was firebombed by pro-abortion terrorists last year when the Dobbs Supreme Court decision was leaked. His pro-life center was one of 90 similar centers which were targeted.  In light of the recent first anniversary on June 24th of the Supreme Court decision to overturned Roe v. Wade, Harden talked to The Worldview about American intelligence about future violence expected from the pro-aborts. HARDEN:  “We know there's going to be more violence ahead targeting pro-life pregnancy centers because on May 24 the Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin from the National Terrorism Advisory System warning of more violence one year after the pro-abortion Kristallnacht was sparked by the illegal leak of the Supreme Court decision Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health. “The bulletin that the [Department of Homeland Security] sent out reads, ‘Factors that could mobilize individuals to commit violence include judicial decisions pertaining to socio-political issues. Likely targets of potential violence, include faith-based institutions.' So, the translation here is that judicial decisions pertaining to socio-political issues refers to the Dobbs anniversary, which is June 24th, and the Fifth Circuit's potential overturning of the FDA's illegal approval of the dangerous chemical abortion drug, mifepristone. Those two things are animating left-wing, pro-abortion extremists.” Supreme Court blocks Biden's $430 billion student loan forgiveness In a 6-3 decision, the U.S Supreme Court handed President Joe Biden a painful defeat on Friday, blocking his plan to cancel $430 billion in student loan debt -- a move that had been intended to benefit up to 43 million Americans, reports Reuters. The court sided with six conservative-leaning states - Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina - that objected to Biden's student loan forgiveness. Its ruling dealt a blow to the 26 million borrowers who simply did not want to repay the student loans that they themselves initiated after Biden announced the plan in August 2022. Chief Justice John Roberts said that such broad action would require clear congressional approval. Under Biden's plan, the U.S. government was going to forgive up to $10,000 in federal student debt for Americans making under $125,000 who obtained loans to pay for college and other post-secondary education. And Uncle Sam was going to forgive $20,000 of student debt for Pell grants to students from lower-income families. Supreme Court vacates $135,000 fine against Christian bakers And finally, the United States Supreme Court vacated a lower court decision against a Christian couple in Oregon who were punished for not making a cake for a lesbian wedding, reports The Christian Post. In 2013, the owners of Sweetcakes by Melissa, Aaron and Melissa Klein cited their Christian belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. In response, the lesbians filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, in which the government entity concluded that the Kleins had violated the state's accommodations law.  That led to a whopping $135,000 fine against the Kleins, forcing them to close their bakery. In 2016, the Kleins appealed the ruling, but the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the order in 2018.  That's when the Christian couple first appealed to the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court's recent decision handed down Friday, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that “the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.” First Liberty President Kelley Shackleford, who represented the Kleins said, “It's a win when the Supreme Court vacates a bad lower court decision like it did for Aaron and Melissa today, but the case is not over. The Kleins have been fighting for the First Amendment for over a decade and we will stand with them no matter how long it takes to get the victory they deserve.” When Jesus was questioned about marriage by the Pharisees, He asked, “Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,' and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'” (Matthew 19:4-5) Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Monday, July 3rd in the year of our Lord 2023. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

La semana pasada el Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos dictaminó que parámetros como la raza ya no se tendrán en cuenta para los procesos de admisión en las universidades. La decisión tomada por una mayoría de seis votos contra tres obligará a reelaborar los criterios de admisión en la educación superior de la mayor parte de Estados, donde durante décadas esto de la diversidad racial ha sido casi un artículo de fe. El impacto más inmediato se sentirá en las universidades más prestigiosas del país, las de la llamada Ivy League, situadas todas en el nordeste cuyos títulos son considerados como los más valiosos ya que constituyen un trampolín para la movilidad social ascendente en Estados Unidos. El propio tribunal Supremo que ha tomado esta decisión es un ejemplo. Ocho de los nueve jueces que lo componen estudiaron en Yale, en Harvard o en alguna de las universidades de la Ivy League. El presidente del tribunal, el juez John Roberts, que se graduó en Harvard en 1979, aseguró tras la sentencia que “durante demasiado tiempo las universidades han concluido, erróneamente, que la piedra de toque de la identidad de un individuo no son los retos superados, las habilidades desarrolladas o las lecciones aprendidas, sino el color de su piel. Nuestra historia constitucional no tolera esa elección”. Los seis jueces que votaron a favor de eliminar la medida (Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett y el presidente John Roberts) creen que la discriminación racial debe ser eliminada por completo, que el estudiante ha de ser tratado sobre la base de sus experiencias como individuo y no sobre la base de la raza. Según ellos “muchas universidades han hecho todo lo contrario durante demasiado tiempo” La decisión del Supremo ha ocasionado una formidable polémica. Los partidarios de la discriminación positiva aseguran que no existe sustitución posible a esta medida si se quiere garantizar que las minorías raciales, especialmente los estudiantes negros, puedan acceder a las universidades más solicitadas. Creen que la discriminación positiva es un contrapeso necesario para corregir los errores de varios siglos de discriminación racial en los que a los estadounidenses no blancos se les negó la admisión en escuelas y lugares de trabajo. La jueza del Supremo Sonia Sotomayor junto a los otros dos jueces que votaron en contra, Elena Kagan y Ketanji Brown Jackson, creen que la sociedad “no es, y nunca ha sido, daltónica”. Para ellos el tribunal Supremo está ignorando las peligrosas consecuencias de una sentencia que no refleja la diversidad del pueblo estadounidense. El asunto no tardó en saltar a la arena política. El presidente Joe Biden mostró su desacuerdo y pidió que se construyan itinerarios educativos que apuesten por la inclusión. Donald Trump recibió el fallo de forma muy distinta, dijo que era un gran día para Estados Unidos, que por fin se hacía justicia y que supone una recompensa para todos los que tengan habilidades extraordinarias. Ni uno ni otro podrán cambiar la sentencia ya que el Supremo es independiente, lo que obliga a las instituciones de educación superior a buscar nuevos métodos para que se mantenga la diversidad racial en las universidades. Nadie sabe aún cómo lo van a hacer. En La ContraRéplica: - Montevideo sin agua potable - Escrache en Valencia - Los activistas de "Sinpoli" · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #eeuu #universidad Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

New from the Colson Center!  Interested in the What Would You Say? video project? Subscribe to be notified when new videos are released at whatwouldyousay.org/subscribe. Watch the latest release and explore the full on-demand library!   _   On Friday, the Supreme Court delivered a smashing victory for free speech. Lorie Smith is the founder of 303 Creative, a graphic design company that, among other services, creates custom websites for weddings. Concerned that a Colorado law would force her to design websites for same-sex weddings or take on other projects that would violate her deeply held religious beliefs, Smith filed a pre-enforcement challenge, asking the court to weigh in on whether the law violated her freedom of speech and conscience.  The state decided that Lorie did not have the right to choose which messages she uses her talents to express. It even forbade her, for example, from posting a notice on her website stating she is unable to create websites that express messages contrary to her Christian beliefs, including websites that promote abortion services, celebrate same-sex marriages, or advance a transgender ideology. In July 2021, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Smith and for the state of Colorado.  Friday, on the last day of the 2023 docket, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision and ruled in favor of Lorie Smith. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch, explained:   The First Amendment's protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. ... Consistent with the First Amendment, the Nation's answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment.  Kristen Waggoner, general counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom who argued the case before the Court, described the win in a press release:  This is a win for all Americans. The government should no more censor Lorie for speaking consistent with her beliefs about marriage than it should punish an LGBT graphic designer for declining to criticize same-sex marriage. If we desire freedom for ourselves, we must defend it for others.  It's not yet clear what implications this decision will hold for others, such as Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips, who are being forced to choose between their businesses and their deeply held religious beliefs. However, unlike the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop case, this decision was far broader and clearly dealt with questions of speech, conscience, and government coercion. In the Masterpiece case, the Supreme Court smacked down the state of Colorado for showing clear and extensive animus toward Jack's faith. The state civil rights commission responded by not only showing similar animus again, but by also allowing and enabling another citizen to harass Jack Phillips, beginning on the same day that Jack's first case was approved to be heard by the Supreme Court, and continuing today.  Already, voices as significant as dissenting Supreme Court justices and major media outlets have reported that, in the 303 Creative decision, the Court has allowed business owners to refuse service for LGBTQ people. That is simply not true. In fact, Justice Gorsuch specifically said as much in his majority opinion.   Justice Sonia Sotomayor, however, repeated that falsehood anyway before articulating a revisionist history of LGBTQ rights. For example, she repeated falsehoods about the murder of Matthew Shepard, wrongly claimed that the Colorado law did not affect Lorie Smith's rights “in any meaningful sense,” and neglected the condition established by Smith that she would not refuse service to anyone because of their sexual orientation.   To the dissent, Justice Gorsuch retorted in the majority opinion, “It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case.”  Lorie Smith never asked for the right to refuse service to a particular group of people. She asked not to be forced to produce speech that she did not agree with. That's what the Court affirmed on Friday. It is important that, whenever possible, all Americans who are concerned about the rights of conscience, including the freedom of speech, correct the falsehoods about this decision.  As Lorie Smith said in ADF's press release,  This is a victory not just for me but for all Americans across our great country—for those who share my beliefs and for those who hold different beliefs. Whether you're an LGBT graphic designer, a Jewish calligrapher, an Atheist speechwriter, or a pro-life photographer, the government shouldn't force any of us to say something we don't believe. I love people and work with everyone, including those who identify as LGBT. For me, it's always about what message is requested, never the person requesting. I hope that, regardless of what people think of me or my beliefs, everyone will celebrate that the court upheld the right for each of us to speak freely.  Congratulations to ADF and to Lorie Smith.  This Breakpoint was co-authored by Dr. Heather Peterson. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

On Tuesday, June 27, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. The question before the Court was whether a Pennsylvania law governing out-of-state corporations registered to do business inside the state that purports to confer general personal jurisdiction over the registrant violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Court vacated and remanded the case in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch holding that the law comports with the Due Process Clause as set forth in Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co. (243 U.S. 93). Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion. Please join us as Ashley Keller, John Masslon, and Professor Brian Fitzpatrick discuss the decision.

Earlier Friday, in a major blow to President Joe Biden and his administration, the U.S. Supreme Court officially struck down the federal student loan debt elimination scheme. And the impact of this ruling will have tremendous ramifications over the next year—specifically, as we're heading into the 2024 election. After about a year of legal back and forth, the Supreme Court ruled against the Biden administration, finding their scheme to be illegal. The court ruled 6–3, with the conservative wing (including Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) all ruling against the Biden administration. ⭕️ Sign up for our NEWSLETTER and stay in touch

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 1: In a six to three decision released on Friday, the Supreme Court rejected the Biden Administration's claim that under the Heroes Act—adopted after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2002—the executive branch possesses the unilateral authority to erase an estimated $430 billion in student loan debt. Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that, in erasing student loan debt, the White House had attempted to “rewrite” the Heroes Act “from the ground up.” Jess Bavin of The Wall Street Journal summarizes Roberts' argument: “Roberts highlighted the hardship that fell on those who hadn't taken on student debt. Imagine, he said, a high-school graduate who borrowed money to set up a lawn-care business, while a classmate instead went to college on a student loan.” You can read more about the court's decision in Biden v. Nebraska here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-strikes-down-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-54a1ca7 In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court ruled that Lori Smith—a Christian web-site designer—is not legally obligated to make wedding websites for same-sex couples. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch argues: “Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance”…“But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.” You can read more about the court's decision here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-designer-who-refuses-to-make-same-sex-wedding-websites/ While appearing on MSNBC, GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis claimed that the Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis provided a “license to discriminate” and accused them of “taking away rights” from LGBTQ+. Attorney Ilya Shapiro— Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute & Author of “Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to breakdown the Supreme Court's landmark decisions regarding student-loan forgiveness (Biden v. Nebraska) and religious freedom (303 Creative v. Elenis). The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes of wide-spread delays at the airport over July 4th weekend: “Americans are looking forward to summer vacation and included in the package: A scenic view of the tarmac at LaGuardia airport. The Federal Aviation Administration is blaming travel mayhem this week on thunderstorms, but the underlying reason you'll pay more to arrive late to the beach is decades of government mismanagement.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/airport-flight-delays-federal-aviation-administration-pete-buttigieg-chuck-schumer-government-7c83f7a2?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion in today's decision in Case 21-476 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The Biden Administration's student loan forgiveness plan is stuck down in the Supreme Court. According to the latest Rasmussen Report, a year after the Supreme Court overruled Roe V. Wade 52% of likely-U.S. voters approve of the decision and do not feel abortion is an electoral issue. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (06/30/2023): 3:05pm- In a six to three decision released on Friday, the Supreme Court rejected the Biden Administration's claim that under the Heroes Act—adopted after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2002—the executive branch possesses the unilateral authority to erase an estimated $430 billion in student loan debt. Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that, in erasing student loan debt, the White House had attempted to “rewrite” the Heroes Act “from the ground up.” Jess Bavin of The Wall Street Journal summarizes Roberts' argument: “Roberts highlighted the hardship that fell on those who hadn't taken on student debt. Imagine, he said, a high-school graduate who borrowed money to set up a lawn-care business, while a classmate instead went to college on a student loan.” You can read more about the court's decision in Biden v. Nebraska here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-strikes-down-bidens-student-loan-forgiveness-plan-54a1ca7 3:15pm- In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court ruled that Lori Smith—a Christian web-site designer—is not legally obligated to make wedding websites for same-sex couples. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch argues: “Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance”…“But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.” You can read more about the court's decision here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-designer-who-refuses-to-make-same-sex-wedding-websites/ 3:30pm- While appearing on MSNBC, GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis claimed that the Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis provided a “license to discriminate” and accused them of “taking away rights” from LGBTQ+. 3:40pm- Attorney Ilya Shapiro— Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute & Author of “Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America's Highest Court”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to breakdown the Supreme Court's landmark decisions regarding student-loan forgiveness (Biden v. Nebraska) and religious freedom (303 Creative v. Elenis). 3:50pm- The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes of wide-spread delays at the airport over July 4th weekend: “Americans are looking forward to summer vacation and included in the package: A scenic view of the tarmac at LaGuardia airport. The Federal Aviation Administration is blaming travel mayhem this week on thunderstorms, but the underlying reason you'll pay more to arrive late to the beach is decades of government mismanagement.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/airport-flight-delays-federal-aviation-administration-pete-buttigieg-chuck-schumer-government-7c83f7a2?mod=opinion_lead_pos1 4:05pm- Andy Bloom—President of Andy Bloom Communications & Contributor to Broad + Liberty—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his most recent editorial, “Don't Let Pennsylvania Replicate the Minnesota Mess.” You can read the full editorial here: https://broadandliberty.com/2023/06/22/andy-bloom-dont-let-pennsylvania-replicate-the-minnesota-mess/ 4:15pm- Following the release of the Supreme Court's decision in the student-loan forgiveness case Biden v. Nebraska, President Joe Biden held a press conference from the Roosevelt Room of the White House where he spoke critically of the court's verdict. At the conclusion of the press briefing, Biden was asked about a State Department report which found the Biden Administration had mishandled the U.S. military's withdrawal from Afghanistan during the summer of 2020. You can read more about the State Department's report here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/30/afghanistan-withdrawal-state-department-report/ 4:35pm- At a press conference to address the Supreme Court's decision in Biden v. Nebraska, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said that, while he accepts the court's decision, his department will seek a new method to alleviate the debt burden placed on students. In Biden v. Nebraska the Supreme court rejected the Biden Administration's argument that the executive branch could unilaterally cancel student loan debts via the Heroes Act. 4:50pm- CNN commentator Van Jones referred to the Supreme Court's recent rulings as a “tragedy.” 5:05pm- In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court ruled that Lori Smith—a Christian web-site designer—is not legally obligated to make wedding websites for same-sex couples. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch argues: “Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance”…“But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.” You can read more about the court's decision here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-designer-who-refuses-to-make-same-sex-wedding-websites/ 5:15pm- In his concurring opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: “While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law.” In response to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent, Thomas argues: “race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals' skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.” You can read an abbreviated version of Justice Thomas' concurring opinion here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/read-it-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-delivers-must-read-opinion-in-affirmative-action-ruling and read the court's opinion here: https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/06/supreme-court-decision-in-unc-admissions-case-1.pdf 5:30pm- Appearing on Fox News with Lawrence Jones, St. Phillips College biology professor Johnson Varkey revealed that he was fired for teaching that X and Y chromosomes determine gender. 5:35pm- Attorney Jonathon Scruggs— Senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy and the Center for Conscience Initiatives with Alliance Defending Freedom—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis which determined that Lori Smith, a Christian web-site designer, is not legally obligated to make wedding websites for same-sex couples. Alliance Defending Freedom provided legal representation for Smith. You can learn more about the case here: https://adflegal.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis 5:50pm- Dr. Nicole Saphier—board-certified diagnostic and interventional radiologist, professor at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, & Fox News contributor—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss health news and vaccine hesitancy arising following the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. 6pm Hour: Rich fills-in for Mark Levin!

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court ruled that Lori Smith—a Christian web-site designer—is not legally obligated to make wedding websites for same-sex couples. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch argues: “Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance”…“But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.” You can read more about the court's decision here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-designer-who-refuses-to-make-same-sex-wedding-websites/ In his concurring opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: “While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law.” In response to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent, Thomas argues: “race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals' skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.” You can read an abbreviated version of Justice Thomas' concurring opinion here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/read-it-supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-delivers-must-read-opinion-in-affirmative-action-ruling and read the court's opinion here: https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/06/supreme-court-decision-in-unc-admissions-case-1.pdf Appearing on Fox News with Lawrence Jones, St. Phillips College biology professor Johnson Varkey revealed that he was fired for teaching that X and Y chromosomes determine gender. Attorney Jonathon Scruggs— Senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy and the Center for Conscience Initiatives with Alliance Defending Freedom—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the Supreme Court's decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis which determined that Lori Smith, a Christian web-site designer, is not legally obligated to make wedding websites for same-sex couples. Alliance Defending Freedom provided legal representation for Smith. You can learn more about the case here: https://adflegal.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis Dr. Nicole Saphier—board-certified diagnostic and interventional radiologist, professor at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, & Fox News contributor—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss health news and vaccine hesitancy arising following the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. 6pm Hour: Rich fills-in for Mark Levin!