Podcast appearances and mentions of Neil Gorsuch

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for November 13, 2025. 0:30 We break down the Department of Justice’s stunning lawsuit against the state of California over Proposition 50, a ballot initiative that rewrote the state’s congressional maps with blatant, unapologetic racial gerrymandering. With the balance of power in Congress potentially shifting by as many as nine seats, this isn’t just about California. It’s about the future of the Voting Rights Act, the limits of racial considerations in mapmaking, and whether the Constitution still draws the lines… or the politicians do. 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. President Trump signed a bill ending the federal Government shutdown. Democrat Katie Wilson defeated incumbent Democrat Bruce Harrell to become the next mayor of Seattle. The former Chief of Staff for California Governor Gavin Newsom was just arrested as part of a federal corruption investigation. 12:30 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:00 California is back in the headlines — and not for anything resembling sanity. We break down the explosive revelation that the California DMV handed out more than 17,000 commercial trucking licenses to foreign nationals, including illegal aliens with no work permits, no legal status, and in many cases, no ability to read or speak English. What should be a safety-first agency has been weaponized into a sanctuary institution, prioritizing politics over public safety. We dive into how this reckless licensing spree undermines trained American truckers, destabilizes one of the most regulated industries in the nation, and endangers everyone on the road. 16:00 We ask American Mamas — Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson — what they think about the viral confrontation between singer Tish Hyman and California congressional candidate Scott Weiner. After a fully intact biological male entered the women’s locker room at her San Francisco gym, Hyman — a Black lesbian and longtime Democrat voter — confronted Wiener directly, demanding to know whether he would actually protect women’s safety. The Mamas break down the moment Hyman stood her ground against a hostile crowd, challenged the narrative that “trans women are women,” and exposed the disturbing criminal history of the man at the center of the controversy. What emerges is a rare, powerful pushback from inside the Democratic base itself — and a sign that even in San Francisco, the backlash to radical gender policies may be beginning. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 22:30 We break down the stunning admission from Democratic Senators John Hickenlooper and Jack Reed, who now claim the longest government shutdown in American history was — unbelievably — “worth it.” While millions of Americans went without paychecks, vital services stalled, and military families were left in limbo, these senators are patting themselves on the back as if the suffering was an acceptable price for partisan leverage. We dig into what the shutdown was really about: not national security, not fiscal responsibility, but a political standoff over illegal-alien healthcare and a $1.5 trillion progressive wish list. 27:00 We Dig Deep into a rare moment of clarity from the U.S. Supreme Court — courtesy of Justice Neil Gorsuch. While promoting his upcoming children’s book, Heroes of 1776, Gorsuch sat down with Fox & Friends’ Lawrence Jones to discuss an urgent issue: America’s growing civic illiteracy. When asked about the consequences of removing foundational stories from our classrooms, Gorsuch didn’t hesitate. The greatest threat to America, he warned, is America itself — a population that no longer knows its own history. We unpack his sobering reminder that most Americans can’t pass the same citizenship test required of legal immigrants, and how that civic ignorance is fueling everything from political polarization to the rise of socialism in major cities. If we don’t teach people why this nation was founded — the principles of natural rights, limited government, and personal liberty — then someone else will fill that void, and not with the truth. 32:00 Get TrimROX from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 33:00 We dive into the newest revelations from the Epstein document dump—and what the media isn’t telling you. While headlines focus on misdirection and selectively edited claims, the real story is hiding in plain sight: high-profile journalists and a former New York Times reporter were privately begging Jeffrey Epstein for dirt on Donald Trump… and came up empty. We break down who was involved, what the emails actually show, and why the media’s narrative conveniently ignores the exculpatory details. 35:00 Plus, Barry Brownstein’s Daily Economy article, “The Economics of Gratitude" is a real Bright Spot. We unpack a powerful idea from the article, that gratitude— not entitlement— is the foundation of prosperity. Drawing on insights from 19th-century economist Frédéric Bastiat, we reflect on how modern life is built on the contributions of millions of people we’ll never meet—and how easy it is to lose sight of that. From the smartphones in our pockets to the computers on our desks, we rely every day on technology that no single person could ever build alone. Yet in a culture of comfort and convenience, gratitude evaporates quickly. We dig into how cultivating gratitude can reshape your worldview, your politics, and your daily life, and why remembering what you already have may be the most radical—and liberating—act you can take. 39:30 Harvard's grading scale has basically become a joke. They call it “grade inflation,” but let’s be honest—it’s a participation-trophy festival. And now there’s a rumor that Harvard might finally do something about it. Perhaps Harvard has realized that standards really do matter and they're saying, "Whoa." 41:30 And we finish off with some Words of Wisdom about gratitude. Follow us: americangroundradio.com Facebook: facebook.com / AmericanGroundRadio Instagram: instagram.com/americangroundradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sarah Isgur and David French do a deep dive into the nondelegation clause and the role of Congress in delegating authority. The Agenda:—CLE credit now available in Texas for our tariffs livestream—Dave Portnoy and disturbing the peace charges—Nondelegation doctrine primer—The Case of Mr. Pheasant—What is structural constitutionalism?—Justice Gorsuch's legacy—Court to consider prison inmate's religious liberty claims—Legal scenarios around service member participation in strikes outside Venezuela We're running a listener survey, which you can find at ⁠thedispatch.typeform.com/podcast⁠.  Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

It's Tuesday, November 11th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson Nigerian Governor denies Christian genocide Just days after Nigerian Nasarawa State Governor Abdullahi Sule publicly denied the existence of religious persecution or Christian genocide in Nigeria, about 50 Fulani Muslim gunmen launched a deadly midnight assault on a Christian community in the state.   Three individuals were murdered and others were critically wounded in the massacre.   In protest, hundreds of youths from the community displayed the dead bodies of the victims and blocked traffic until the military showed up to disperse them.  They were protesting the persistent invasions and kidnappings, in hopes of some government intervention. According to Open Doors, Nigeria is the seventh most dangerous country worldwide for Christians. Sudanese civil war claims 70,000 civilian lives The ongoing civil war in Sudan, Africa is bringing untold losses to human life. Approximately, 70,000 civilians were killed in the last year, and the same number the year before. A paramilitary group, known as the “Rapid Support Forces,” is killing civilians with darker skin in the ethnic purge — and then burying the bodies in mass graves, reports Al Jazeera. America invested twice as much in Africa as China did The BBC reports that the U.S. has overtaken China as Africa's biggest investor for the first time since 2012. America invested $7.8 billion in 2023, compared to China's $4 billion. America absent from U.N. Climate Change Conference The 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference kicked off yesterday in Belém, Brazil. Notably, the U.S. federal delegation is absent, reports The Hill.com. 7 Democrats, 1 Independent join GOP to end gov't shutdown The U.S. Democrat Party has experienced a seismic split. In an historic development on the national scene, seven Democrat senators and one Independent senator agreed to a compromise with the Republicans in the U.S. Senate to bring the government shutdown to an end, report The Epoch Times. The defectors were Dick Durbin (D-IL), Catherine Masto (D-NV), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), John Fetterman (D-PA), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), and Angus King (I-ME). The big bone of contention among the Democrats in the shutdown concerned there hope of extending the Obamacare funding of individual and family health insurance.  Health insurers are corrupt and contribute heavily to Democrats Breitbart and American Resolve estimate that health insurers are taking in $1 trillion per year in federal subsidies, thanks to Obamacare. Plus, their stocks are up 1,000% since 2009. These companies contributed five times more funds to the Kamala Harris presidential campaign than they contributed to Donald Trump's campaign. And “Blue Shield of California donated $500,000 and UnitedHealth donated $75,000 to Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom's ballot measure effort, Prop. 50” which could give Democrat and insurance companies five additional seats in Congress. Even more egregious, federal auditors estimate that Medicare Advantage will overbill medical services somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 trillion this decade. Isaiah 1:23 warns of princes who “are rebellious, and companions of thieves. Everyone loves bribes and follows after rewards. They do not defend the fatherless, nor does the cause of the widow come before them.” Tucker Carlson in hot water for Nick Fuentes interview But then, the “conservative right” has their own dumpster fire going after Tucker Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes. (It was a 2-hour-long interview). Ben Shapiro, the conservative founder of The Daily Wire, referred to Carlson as the “most virulent super-spreader of vile ideas in America.”  Mark Levin layered on another epithet for Carlson, calling the conservative talk show host a “Nazi promoter. " And Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas called the Fuentes interview “cowardly and complicit." Supremes unlikely to affirm Trump's tariffs According to the SCOTUS BLOG, the U.S. Supreme Court appears doubtful as to the constitutionality of the Trump tariffs.   Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical in the oral arguments which took place last Wednesday.  Supreme Court will not reverse homosexual marriage The U.S. Supreme Court will not reverse Obergefell.   The high court issued their decision Monday to let the 2015 decision stand — codifying the legitimization of faux marriage for those living in unnatural relations, men with men, and women with women — here in the United States. The justices rejected an appeal from former Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis — who had refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples — on the basis of her religious beliefs. A few weeks ago, Justice Amy Barrett admitted her reluctance to oppose the homosexual campaign for same-sex faux marriage because of what she called "very concrete reliance interests,” reports the New York Times. These apparently did not include God's interests. In a speech Justice Samuel Alito gave a few months ago, he called the Obergefell decision a “precedent of the court that is entitled to the respect afforded by the doctrine of stare decisis.”   That's a legal term meaning the policy of following principles laid down in previous judicial decisions. Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel was quite disappointed.  He said, “The majority of Supreme Court Justices know Obergefell is wrong, and this case should have been granted review and reversed that unconstitutional opinion. We are committed to overturning Obergefell. Like the abortion issue in Roe v. Wade, the Obergefell opinion has no basis in the U.S. Constitution.” The Prophet Micah issued this lament in Chapter 7:2-4. “The faithful man has perished from the Earth, and there is no one upright among men. They all lie in wait for blood; The best of them is like a brier; The most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge; The day of your watchman and your punishment comes; Now shall be their perplexity.” Household debt shot up by 30% Total U.S. household debt has registered a 30% increase since 2020 — now at $18.5 trillion. And, the U.S. dollar has weakened against major currencies this year by about 10%. That's the worst performance since the Nixon presidency.   Meanwhile, gold has increased about 60% in value this year to date. Average American wedding costs $33,000 And finally, in other economic news, The Knot reveals that the average wedding now costs $33,000. And couples who invite over 140 guests will need to pay $40,000. The price tag is location dependent.  New York weddings run $48,000 while Wyoming weddings average $17,000. To compare, the cost of the average starter home in America this year, by RedFin's metric, is $260,000 with a down payment of $16,900. Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, November 11th, in the year of our Lord 2025, the 19th wedding anniversary of my bride Amy and me. Check out our love story at www.AdamsWedding.net.  Follow The Worldview on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Show (11/06/2025): 3:05pm- On Tuesday night, Democrat Mikie Sherrill defeated Republican Jack Ciattarelli in their New Jersey gubernatorial race. With more than 95% of the vote reported, Sherrill leads by 13%—56.3 to 43.1%. Prior to election day, most pollsters—including Trafalgar—published data showing the race would be significantly closer. What happened? 3:10pm- Government Shutdown's Impact: Did the Trump administration's decision to halt federal funding for the Gateway Tunnel project between New Jersey and New York help Mikie Sherrill win? 3:15pm- Despite winning her race to become the next governor of New Jersey less than 48-hours ago, is Mikie Sherrill already planning for a White House run in 2028? 3:30pm- Listeners call in and react to Tuesday's election results. 3:40pm- Rich notes that the American education system no longer teaches the history of communism—and the disastrous consequences for societies that embrace it. Accordingly, young Americans are becoming more and more sympathetic to the ideology. 4:05pm- Dr. Wilfred Reilly—Professor of Political Science at Kentucky State University & Author of “Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to recap Election Day. Why are young Americans increasingly sympathetic to communist political ideology? PLUS, NYU professor Scott Galloway addresses the male loneliness crises in his new book—but what's the driving cause? Dr. Reilly and Rich joke that the modern internet is encouraging young adults to deemphasize in-person relationships…and instead emphasize relationships with toasters!? 4:45pm- Should we all be nice to artificial intelligence? And after a series of depressing topics, maybe we should all just look at photos of curly haired chickens… 5:00pm- Rich continues to take calls—and listeners continue to react to Tuesday's election results. 5:15pm- In a video posted to social media, Nancy Pelosi announced she will not seek reelection in 2026—meaning that next year will be her last as a member of Congress. The former Speaker of the House has served in the House of Representatives since 1987. Despite members of Congress earning $174,000 annually, Pelosi—according to most estimates—has amassed a net worth of over $200 million. 5:30pm- Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that will determine the legality of President Donald Trump's unilateral adoption of global tariffs. The court seems skeptical of the Trump administration's argument—with Justice Neil Gorsuch asking U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer if, hypothetically, a president could impose a 50% tariff on gas powered vehicles to address the threat of climate change? 5:45pm- Would you buy a humanoid robot to help around the house with chores like folding laundry and loading the dishwasher? 1x Technologies has introduced a personal robot named Neo—measuring 5'6”, weighing 66 pounds, and capable of lifting up to 55 pounds! 6:05pm- Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that Tuesday's election results were a “disaster” for Republicans. 6:30pm- While speaking at the American Business Forum in Miami, President Donald Trump unveiled a new nickname for California Governor Gavin Newsom: “Slimy Newscum!” 6:45pm- Rich goes back to the phones to close out the show.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: 5:00pm- Rich continues to take calls—and listeners continue to react to Tuesday's election results. 5:15pm- In a video posted to social media, Nancy Pelosi announced she will not seek reelection in 2026—meaning that next year will be her last as a member of Congress. The former Speaker of the House has served in the House of Representatives since 1987. Despite members of Congress earning $174,000 annually, Pelosi—according to most estimates—has amassed a net worth of over $200 million. 5:30pm- Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that will determine the legality of President Donald Trump's unilateral adoption of global tariffs. The court seems skeptical of the Trump administration's argument—with Justice Neil Gorsuch asking U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer if, hypothetically, a president could impose a 50% tariff on gas powered vehicles to address the threat of climate change? 5:45pm- Would you buy a humanoid robot to help around the house with chores like folding laundry and loading the dishwasher? 1x Technologies has introduced a personal robot named Neo—measuring 5'6”, weighing 66 pounds, and capable of lifting up to 55 pounds!

It was a big day for President Donald Trump as the Supreme Court heard arguments on his power to impose tariffs unilaterally. And the justices seemed… skeptical. Even Trump-friendly Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned Trump Administration lawyers on their claim that tariffs are foreign policy, so the President can do what he wants. Oregon is one of the states suing the Trump administration over tariffs. To find out more about what they argued at SCOTUS and what might happen if the justices give Trump a very rare loss, we talked to Dan Rayfield, the Attorney General of Oregon.And in headlines, the government shutdown is officially the longest in American history, California Republicans sue the state over Prop 50 just hours after it passes, and Israel and Hamas continue the grim exchange of remains under last month's U.S.-brokered ceasefire.Show Notes:Check out AG Rayfield's work – https://tinyurl.com/2ds3y767Call Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Supreme Court appeared deeply concerned Wednesday with President Donald Trump's reliance on a vague federal law to impose global tariffs, with several members of the court's conservative wing picking apart the administration's position in a case that could have sweeping implications for the economy and presidential power. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: John Jay First SCOTUSOn November 6, 1789, John Jay was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the development of the federal judiciary. Appointed by President George Washington, Jay was a prominent figure in the American founding, having co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as President of the Continental Congress. His confirmation by the Senate came just weeks after the Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the structure of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. At the time of his appointment, the Court held limited power and prestige, lacking even a permanent home or a defined role within the balance of government.Jay's tenure as Chief Justice lasted from 1789 to 1795 and was characterized more by circuit riding—traveling to preside over lower federal courts—than by Supreme Court rulings. Nonetheless, he helped lay the procedural and institutional groundwork for the Court's future authority. One of his few significant decisions came in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which asserted that states could be sued in federal court, a holding that was quickly overturned by the Eleventh Amendment. Jay also took on diplomatic duties, most notably negotiating the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which aimed to resolve lingering tensions from the Revolutionary War.Though his judicial legacy on the bench was modest, Jay's influence as the Court's inaugural leader was crucial in legitimizing the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. He later declined a reappointment to the position in 1800, citing the Court's lack of power and institutional independence. The role of Chief Justice would eventually evolve into a central force in constitutional interpretation, but it was Jay who first gave the office its shape. This milestone in legal history underscores the slow and deliberate construction of American judicial authority, which did not arrive fully formed but was built case by case, institution by institution.The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case that raises major constitutional and statutory questions about the scope of presidential power—particularly in the context of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At the heart of the dispute is whether the word “regulate” in IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The case touches on foundational issues in constitutional law, including statutory interpretation, the nondelegation doctrine, emergency powers, and the “major questions” doctrine. The Court must assess not just what the statute says, but also how to interpret the silence—IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes”—in light of Congress's constitutional power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce.From a textualist standpoint, the omission of “tariffs” suggests Congress did not intend to delegate that taxing authority to the executive. From a purposivist view, the debate turns on whether Congress meant to arm the president with broad economic tools to respond to emergencies or to narrowly limit those powers to national security concerns. Additional arguments center on legislative history and the principle of avoiding surplusage, as opponents claim interpreting “regulate” to include “tariff” would render other statutes that explicitly mention tariffs redundant.The nondelegation doctrine also plays a key role. If IEEPA is read to permit the president to impose tariffs, critics argue it may represent an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power—particularly taxing power—absent a clear “intelligible principle” to guide executive discretion. The Court is also being asked to consider whether the president's determination of an “emergency” under IEEPA is reviewable and whether actions taken in response to such emergencies must still adhere to constitutional limits. The outcome of this case could significantly redefine the boundary between congressional authority and executive power in trade and economic policy.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case challenging President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to enact tariffs, which are traditionally under legislative control. The legal debate centered on whether IEEPA's grant of authority to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose long-term tariffs, and whether doing so constitutes a “major question” requiring explicit congressional authorization.Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, expressed concern that Trump's use of IEEPA effectively allowed the executive to impose taxes—a core congressional function. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether there was any precedent for interpreting “regulate importation” as tariff-imposing authority, while Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that IEEPA was designed to limit, not expand, presidential power. Some conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, were more receptive, referencing historical precedents like Nixon's use of similar powers.The administration argued the tariffs were necessary to respond to trade deficits and national security threats and warned that removing them could lead to economic harm. But critics, including business representatives and Democratic-led states, warned of a dangerous shift in power toward the executive. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested such an interpretation of IEEPA could permanently shift trade powers away from Congress, violating constitutional checks and balances.Lawyer for Trump faces tough Supreme Court questions over legality of tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Eric Tung to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-45 party-line vote, making him President Donald Trump's sixth appellate court appointee in his second term. Tung, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department lawyer, most recently worked at Jones Day, where he focused on commercial litigation and frequently represented cryptocurrency interests. His confirmation came over the objections of California's Democratic senators, who criticized his past statements and writings on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender roles.Tung has been a vocal legal advocate for controversial positions, including support for the independent state legislature theory and the argument that stablecoin sales fall outside SEC regulation. While he pledged to follow Supreme Court precedent, critics raised concerns about his originalist approach to constitutional rights. He faced intense scrutiny during his confirmation hearings for remarks made at a Federalist Society event and earlier in life, including statements about gender roles that drew fire from Senator Alex Padilla.Despite these concerns, Tung's legal career earned strong endorsements from colleagues and conservative legal allies. He clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch and has experience handling judicial nominations from within DOJ. Tung fills the seat vacated by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a fellow conservative, ensuring ideological continuity on the Ninth Circuit.Former DOJ, Jones Day Lawyer Confirmed as Ninth Circuit JudgeThe California Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, seeking to block the implementation of new congressional maps approved by voters just a day earlier via Proposition 50. The measure, backed by Newsom and passed by wide margins, suspends the state's independent redistricting commission and installs a Democratic-leaning map that could endanger five Republican-held congressional seats. Newsom has framed the move as a direct response to Texas' mid-cycle redistricting, which is expected to boost Republican power in the 2026 midterms.The GOP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as the primary factor in redrawing districts to favor Hispanic voters. The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group, claim the state legislature lacked sufficient justification to use race in this way and failed to meet the legal standards required under the Voting Rights Act.Republicans also contend that Proposition 50 diminishes the political voice of non-Hispanic groups and constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The suit, Tangipa v. Newsom, is backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and includes Republican lawmakers and candidates as plaintiffs. It mirrors legal challenges in Texas, where courts are evaluating claims of racial bias in redistricting. The outcome of these cases could significantly affect congressional control heading into the latter half of President Trump's second term.California Republicans Sue to Block New Congressional Maps (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special Daily Special, Metro Shrimp & Grits Thursdays is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, the Supreme Court's decision about whether Trump's trillion dollar Tariff scheme is unconstitutional or illegal, all comes down to which way Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett flip.Then, on the rest of the menu, a Senate committee hearing devolved into a “stalking” shouting match after a Republican member admitted to tracking Democratic Senator's cars and spying on them; a Republican-appointed federal judge blasted ICE's “fictional” attempt to jail an innocent man to twenty years over their own goon's self-inflicted injury; and, eleven states sued the Trump administration over “unlawful terms” placed on FEMA grants.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where the United States arrested five men in California at Germany's request in an international probe of online fraud involving German payment providers; and, dozens of swastikas painted in human blood were smeared on dozens of cars, hundreds of mailboxes and scores of building facades in the central German town of Hanau, infamous for the racist mass killing of immigrants in 2020.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!“Everyone in this good city enjoys the full right to pursue their own inclinations in all reasonable and, unreasonable ways.” -- The Daily Picayune, New Orleans, March 5, 1851Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

Trump's Tariffs are up for grabs, as his Administration met a very skeptical Supreme Court panel, including at least 2 votes he needs, Justices Amy Comey Barrett and Justice Gorsuch. Michael Popok reports on the 2.5-hour oral argument and his views on what could end up being a 5-4 decision that could scuttle the entirety of Trump's economic and foreign policies before the midterms. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jimmy Azadian is often in the room when federal judges get together to share their personal concerns about the job. When judges are asked to come speak to a group, Jimmy reports that top of mind are the recent threats to judges and the courts—whether from armed vigilantes, protesters, students, or senators.Jimmy, Tim, and Jeff then turn to some recent SCOTUS and 9th Circuit trends:Standing Doctrine Evolution: Courts are scrutinizing what constitutes concrete injury, particularly since Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined the Supreme Court, with increased scrutiny of statutory damages and class action requirements.Birthright Citizenship Battle: In Washington v. Trump, the 9th Circuit held that the 2025 executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. But Judge Bumatay's partial dissent questioned states' standing, based on “fiscal” concerns, as too tenuous.Anti-SLAPP Shake-up: The en banc 9th Circuit in Gopher Media unanimously held that denials of California anti-SLAPP motions in federal court are no longer immediately appealable, reversing 22-23 years of precedent and potentially driving forum shopping.California Laws Preview: New 2026 laws include immigration enforcement limits at schools, required social media account deletion options, restrictions on facial coverings for immigration agents, direct Cal State University admission standards, and regulation of commercial audio volume.Tune in for essential perspectives on judicial independence, constitutional interpretation, and strategic considerations that could impact your federal practice in the coming year.

Matt Rooney, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of SaveJersey.comTopic: New Jersey Gubernatorial Race John Solomon, award-winning investigative journalist, founder of "Just The News," and the host of “Just the News, No Noise” on the Real America’s Voice network Topic: Elections around the country Lenny Caro, President of the Yonkers Chamber of Commerce Topic: Celebrating Yonkers Col. Jack Jacobs, a retired colonel in the United States Army and a Medal of Honor recipient for his actions during the Vietnam War Topic: Latest U.S. military strike on an alleged drug cartel boat Joe Borelli, Former New York City Councilman and Managing Director of Chartwell Strategy GroupTopic: New York City Mayoral Race Mike Connors, Attorney at Law at Connors & Sullivan and host of "Ask the Lawyer," airing Saturdays at 6 p.m. and Sundays at 11 a.m. on AM 970 The AnswerTopic: Estate Planning Gone Wrong Jim McLaughlin, pollster, strategic consultant, and CEO and Partner of McLaughlin & AssociatesTopic: Polling in New York and New Jersey races 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 JudiciaryTopic: "Justice is coming for perpetrators of Arctic Frost" (Fox News op ed) Dr. Gil Lederman, Expert in Prostate Cancer and the host of "Radiosurgery New York with Dr. Gil Lederman" on AM 970 The AnswerTopic: Jewish tourist attacked in New York CitySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Tales from the 10th, host Erin Gust interviews her former boss, Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, about his life, career, and more than two decades on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Judge Tymkovich reflects on his Colorado roots, his early influences, and his path from the Attorney General's Office to the federal bench. He shares insights into his time as Chief Judge, the challenges of leading during the pandemic and the McGirt decision, and his service on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.The conversation also explores his friendship with Justice Neil Gorsuch, the collegial culture of the 10th Circuit, and the court's significant role in shaping areas like First Amendment, Indian law, and environmental law. Judge Tymkovich discusses memorable cases such as Hobby Lobby, 303 Creative, and Bishop v. Utah, as well as his dedication to mentoring clerks and supporting judicial education.The episode closes with reflections on the judiciary's vital role in maintaining constitutional balance, his optimism for the future of the republic, and personal stories from his travels to Ukraine and Israel.

53:19- Dr. Rebecca Grant, national security analyst based in Washington, D.C. Specializing in defense and aerospace research, founder of IRIS Independent Research, and Senior Fellow at the Lexington Institute Topic: Trump in Asia, possibility of the end of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire 1:11:58- Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counter Terrorism in the Trump Administration Topic: President's visit to Asia, latest from the Trump administration 1:24:43- Thomas Homan, Border Czar for the Trump administration Topic: Shakeup in ICE leadership 1:37:42- Paul Jacobs for Food for the Poor Topic: Hurricane Melissa 1:48:57- Assemblyman Dov Hikind, former New York State Assemblyman and the son of holocaust survivors Topic: Netanyahu's claim that Hamas violated the ceasefire agreement 2:04:55- 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: Zohran Mamdani facing criminal referrals over alleged foreign campaign donations, other legal news of the daySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson welcomes Jan Wolfe of Reuters to break down a major Supreme Court case that could reshape voting rights nationwide. They discuss how a challenge to Louisiana's congressional map escalated into a broader attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—one of the remaining federal protections against racial discrimination in voting. Jan and Jessica unravel the complexities of the case, the Supreme Court's skepticism, and the potential consequences: from narrowing how race can be considered in redistricting, to making it much harder to bring successful claims under Section 2. The episode also takes a look at other high-profile cases on the Supreme Court's docket, including questions of executive power and social issues, highlighting the legal and political stakes at play this term.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is at a crossroads:Following the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County decision (which gutted Section 5 preclearance provisions), Section 2 remains the primary tool to challenge racially discriminatory voting practices. This case could either hobble or maintain its effectiveness, depending on how the justices rule.The current dispute reflects broader battles over race and "colorblindness":The case sits at the intersection of redistricting and the recent trend in the Court toward a “colorblind” constitutional interpretation—reminiscent of last year's affirmative action ruling. The outcome could make it significantly harder to prove voting power is being diluted due to race, with huge consequences for minority representation.The Court's decision may have national ripple effects—or remain narrow:While the justices have options ranging from a sweeping redefinition of Section 2 to a narrow ruling specific to Louisiana, the oral arguments showed splintering among conservatives and uncertainty about the ultimate path forward. Watch for possible “off ramps” that limit the case's impact nationally.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

50:37- Jeff Coltin, Politico NYC Political Reporter and co author of Politico's New York Playbook Topic: Mayoral Debate Recap 1:00:32- Michael Pedone, Public Relations Chairman for the Columbus Citizens Foundation and a retired advertising executive Topic: Italian American Heritage Month 1:11:37- Col. Jack Jacobs, a retired colonel in the United States Army and a Medal of Honor recipient for his actions during the Vietnam War Topic: U.S. drone strike on Caribbean drug smuggling vessel, Trump warning Hamas of a strike if violence continues in Gaza 1:26:36- Liz Peek, Fox News contributor, columnist for Fox News and The Hill, and former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company Topic: Mayoral debate recap, "The New Jersey governor’s race could show the GOP how to win in midterms" (Fox News op ed) 1:36:39- Patrick J. Brosnan, Retired and Decorated NYPD Detective and the host of "Pat Brosnan Live From the Batcave," premiering Saturday at 9 am on AM 970 The Answer Topic: His new show 1:47:28- 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: John Bolton indictment, other legal news of the day 2:00:26- Miranda Devine, columnist for the New York Post and the author of "The Big Guy" Topic: "Trump Derangement Syndrome is on the way out – prez’s alpha-male greatness shines after peace deal" (New York Post op ed) 2:09:08- Dr. Ian K. Smith, physician, author and television host best known for hosting "The Doctors" and the author of the novel "Beyond Midnight" Topic: Medical news of the day, his latest book in the Ashe Cayne seriesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

34:36- Gen. Jack Keane, a retired 4-star general, the chairman of the Institute for the Study of War and Fox News Senior Strategic Analyst Topic: Remembering October 7th attacks, ongoing peace talks 50:01- Hogan Gidley, Former National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign, former White House Deputy Press Secretary, and a Newsmax contributor Topic: Ongoing government shutdown, latest from the Trump administration 1:00:06- Dr. Gabriella Scala, Vice Chair of the Young Adults Auxiliary of Columbus Citizens Foundation Topic: Italian American Heritage Month 1:24:49- 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: New SCOTUS term 1:33:54- Laine Schoneberger, Chief Investment Officer, Managing Partner, and Founder of Yrefy Topic: Latest from Yrefy 1:43:51- Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, host of "The DerShow," and the author of "The Ten Big Anti-Israel Lies: And How to Refute Them with Truth" and the new book "The Preventative State" Topic: Remembering the October 7th attacks, Illinois and Chicago suing the Trump administration 1:57:03- Pastor Corey Brooks, founder and Senior Pastor of New Beginnings Church of Chicago and founder and CEO of Project H.O.O.D. Communities Development CorporationTopic: The argument for the National Guard 2:03:25- Dr. Gil Lederman, Expert in Prostate Cancer and the host of "Radiosurgery New York with Dr. Gil Lederman" on AM 970 The Answer Topic: Remembering the October 7th attacksSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There's a new bombshell in the villa: a fresh episode of Feminist Buzzkills! Lizz and Moji are BACK TOGETHER for the first in a long time to raise hell! Now that RFK Jr. has officially called for an FDA investigation into medication abortion, your Buzzkills gotta break down the actual facts and the totally fictional, completely made up study that prompted this whole fiasco! We're talking Tylenol, Texas, and abortifacients this week! Plus, we're dragging that clownmouth Ezra Klein for showing his ass yet again. GUEST ROLL CALLWe invited CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), Kyleanne Hunter, to take out the trash with us (Pete Hegseth, we're looking at you) and to drop her knowledge on us all about how not having full reproductive healthcare in the military is actually a national security problem! PLUS! Supplying us with the serotonin boost we all need, is the one and only Youngmi Mayer, hilarious comedian and author. She's gabbing it up with us on navigating life as an immigrant, getting an abortion in South Korea, her memoir (YAY!), and why laughing and crying are connected AF. Scared? Got Questions about the continued assault on your reproductive rights? THE FBK LINES ARE OPEN! Just call or text (201) 574-7402, leave your questions or concerns, and Lizz and Moji will pick a few to address on the pod! Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: WE DID A THING IN AUGUST! The Feminist Buzzkills took some big patriarchy-smashing heat to The Big Easy and recorded a live workshop that'll train you in coming for anti-abobo lawmakers, spotting and fighting against fake clinics, AND gears you up on how to help someone in a banned state access abortion. You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our past Operation Save Abortion pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead IG: @LizzWinstead Bluesky: @LizzWinstead.bsky.socialMoji Alawode-El IG: @Mojilocks Bluesky: @Mojilocks.bsky.social SPECIAL GUESTS:Kyleanne Hunter IG: @IAVA @kybikesYoungmi Mayer IG: @ymmayer Bluesky: @ymmayer.bsky.social TikTok: @youngmimayer Substack: @youngmimayer GUEST LINKS:IAVA WebsiteJOIN IAVAIAVA's CavalryYoungmi's WebsiteTICKETS: Youngmi Mayer: Hairy Butthole ShowsSUBSCRIBE: Youngmi's SubstackREAD: Youngmi's MemoirLISTEN: Youngmi's PodcastReproductive Freedom for Veterans Act (HR 4876)Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act (HR 211)5Calls - Find Your Reps NEWS DUMP:‘Long History of Blaming Mothers': Trump's Tylenol Warning Echoes Past MisconceptionsFDA's Arbitrary Restrictions on Vaccines Are Right Out of Anti-Abortion PlaybookTexas Won't Study How Its Abortion Ban Impacts Women, so We DidKennedy Memoir Sheds Light on Former Center of Supreme Court Gay Rights, Abortion RulingsBirth Control Incorrectly Labeled as Abortifacients by Trump AdministrationRFK Jr. Launches FDA Review of Abortion PillLISTEN: FBK Episode Where We Break Down a BS Study EPISODE LINKS:ROE-CABULARY: Abortifacient9/27: Closer to the Edge Fest10/5: Atlantic AnticWATCH: No One Asked You ScreeningsADOPT-A-CLINIC: Charlotte for Choice Wishlist6 DEGREES: M&M's Just Announced a Brand-New Flavor — and They're Already Making It PermanentGet Abobo Pills From Plan C Pills HERE!Operation Save AbortionExpose Fake ClinicsBUY AAF MERCH!EMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist SHOULD I BE SCARED? Text or call us with the abortion news that is scaring you: (201) 574-7402 FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK Podcast Instagram ~ @AbortionFrontBluesky ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFrontTALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This episode of TRP Podcast is dedicated to my dad Mark Mather of Littleton, Colorado, who died 24 Sept 2008 while I was on my way to teach Political and Social Philosophy (Phil M03) at Moorpark College in California. The time stamps for my dad are at 43:35 and following. The rest is about why Gorsuch is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 6 in a series) about his faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- a real hoot. Part 6: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover the rest of Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court. We'll the Republican dissenting opinions next time. Part 6. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

38:01- Jack Ciattarelli, Republican candidate for Governor of New Jersey Topic: New Jersey Gubernatorial Debate 52:06- John Solomon, award-winning investigative journalist, founder of "Just The News," and the host of “Just the News, No Noise” on the Real America’s Voice network Topic: Charlie Kirk memorial service, other news of the day 1:01:07- Mike Burke, Owner of Denino's Pizzeria & Tavern- Staten Island’s Best Pizza Topic: Celebrating Staten Island 1:13:08- Phil Boyce, Senior Vice President of Spoken Word Format for Salem Media Topic: Charlie Kirk's memorial service 1:26:36- Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, a retired U.S. Army officer and an experienced military analyst with on-the-ground experience inside Russia and Ukraine and the author of "Preparing for World War III" Topic: Russia's large-scale air attack on Ukraine, Trump's upcoming meeting with Zelenskyy 1:35:44- Danny Coulson, Former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI and Founding Commander of the FBI Hostage Rescue TeamTopic: FBI investigating possibility of accomplices in Charlie Kirk's assassination 2:01:31- Corey Lewandowski, Trump 2024 Senior Official Topic: Charlie Kirk's memorial service 2:09:33- 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: Pam Bondi, "Trump's latest pick to reform the federal judiciary is another home run" (Fox News op ed)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Family, this week on Queer News Anna DeShawn continues to bring you the stories that matter most to our community. In top news, The Okra Project Expands Nationwide with BetterHelp to Deliver Free Mental Health Care for Black Trans Communities. In politics, In a 6-3 vote the Supreme Court declined to immediately overrule a lower court's block on South Carolina's bathroom ban law, Texas A&M president steps down after upheaval over classroom video. In culture & entertainment, Jason Collins, the man who made history as the first openly gay player in the NBA, has been diagnosed with a brain tumor and Se7en Bites owner Trina Gregory turned 49 parking spots outside her restaurant into a dazzling rainbow in direct protest to Florida crackdown on rainbow crosswalks. Let's get into it.  Want to support this podcast?

56:44- Carmine DeSantis, Executive Director of The New Dorp BID Topic: Celebrating Staten Island 1:07:16- Nicole Parker, Special Agent with the FBI from 2010 through October 2022 and a Fox News contributor Topic: Latest in the Charlie Kirk investigation 1:21:28- Mike Gallagher, radio talk show host heard weekday mornings at 10 a.m. on AM 970 The Answer Topic: Remembering Charlie Kirk 1:44:02- Corey Lewandowski, Trump 2024 Senior Official Topic: Remembering Charlie Kirk, other Trump news 1:58:54- 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: Legalities of the death penalty in the assassination of Charlie Kirk 2:08:40- Dr. Darrin Porcher, Retired NYPD Lieutenant, Criminal Justice Professor at Pace University and a former Army Officer Topic: Policing political violenceSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Professor Josh Blackman Judicial Defiance: Lower Courts Challenge Supreme Court and Trump AdministrationProfessor Josh Blackman details an unprecedented judicial "revolt" where lower federal courts, particularly in Boston, repeatedly defy Supreme Court rulings and temporary restraining orders against the Trump Administration. Cases involve deportation and presidential firing power. Chief Justice Roberts is struggling to make lower courts "get in line," prompting a rare concurrence from Justice Gorsuch criticizing the defiance.1115-1130

CONTINUED Professor Josh Blackman Judicial Defiance: Lower Courts Challenge Supreme Court and Trump AdministrationProfessor Josh Blackman details an unprecedented judicial "revolt" where lower federal courts, particularly in Boston, repeatedly defy Supreme Court rulings and temporary restraining orders against the Trump Administration. Cases involve deportation and presidential firing power. Chief Justice Roberts is struggling to make lower courts "get in line," prompting a rare concurrence from Justice Gorsuch criticizing the defiance. 1888 GAR OHIO

CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW SCHEDULE  9-10-25 Good evening. The show begins in Poland as the government and military respond to drones crossing the Belarus to Poland border... FIRST HOUR 9-915 General Blaine Holt NATO Reacts to Russian Drone Incursions into Poland General Blaine Holt analyzes Russiandrone incursions into Polish airspace from Belarus, triggering a NATO Article 4 meeting. While NATO calls it an "intentional incursion" to allow de-escalation, Poland considers it an "act of war." The incident highlights NATO's rapid response capabilities and the broader "poly crisis" in Europe, requiring diplomatic de-escalation. 915-930 CONTINUED General Blaine Holt NATO Reacts to Russian Drone Incursions into Poland General Blaine Holt analyzes Russiandrone incursions into Polish airspace from Belarus, triggering a NATO Article 4 meeting. While NATO calls it an "intentional incursion" to allow de-escalation, Poland considers it an "act of war." The incident highlights NATO's rapid response capabilities and the broader "poly crisis" in Europe, requiring diplomatic de-escalation. 930-945 Lance Gatling Japan's LDP Prime Minister Race and China's Influence Lance Gatling discusses the race for Japan'snew Prime Minister within the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) following Ishida's resignation. The LDP lacks a majority, complicating coalition-building. Takaichi Sanae, a conservative candidate critical of China, is opposed by Beijing's propagandists, highlighting China's active influence in the Japanese political landscape .945-1000 Captain James Fanell NATO Article 4 Invoked Amidst Russian Drones, China's South China Sea AggressionCaptain James Fanell discusses NATO's Article 4 invocation after Russian drones entered Polish airspace during Zapad exercises, potentially testing defenses. He also details China's escalating aggression in the South China Sea, where its navy chased a Philippine vessel near Scarborough Shoal. The "poly crisis" necessitates increased US defense spending and alliances. SECOND HOUR 10-1015 Steve Yates Pentagon's National Defense Strategy Amidst Global Crises Steve Yates discusses the Pentagon's new National Defense Strategy (NDS), which prioritizes China as the "pacing challenge" over climate change. The "Fortress America" concept of homeland defense is debated against the need for alliances and extended deterrence. Events like Russian drones in Poland underscore the loss of US initiative and the urgency of adaptive defense strategies. 1015-1030 Charles Burton Canada's Dilemma: Chinese EVs and National Security Charles Burton discusses Canada'sreluctance to link national security with China, specifically regarding Chinese EVs (dubbed "spy machines"). Canadaimposed 100% tariffs at US request, leading to China's retaliation on Canadian canola. This creates a dilemma, as Canada prioritizes economic gain despite China's espionage and potential US border bans on Chinese EVs.1030-1045 Andrea Stricker Iran's Nuclear Program Targeted, Verification Crisis Ensues Andrea Stricker discusses Israel and USstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities like Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, destroying centrifuges and weaponization capabilities. The IAEA cannot verify Iran's nuclear material locations after inspectors were expelled. Iran's 60% enriched uranium poses a proliferation risk, leading to anticipated UN sanctions. The strikes prevented JCPOA-allowed centrifuge surges.1045-1100CONTINUED Andrea Stricker Iran's Nuclear Program Targeted, Verification Crisis Ensues Andrea Stricker discusses Israel and USstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities like Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, destroying centrifuges and weaponization capabilities. The IAEA cannot verify Iran's nuclear material locations after inspectors were expelled. Iran's 60% enriched uranium poses a proliferation risk, leading to anticipated UN sanctions. The strikes prevented JCPOA-allowed centrifuge surges. THIRD HOUR 1100-1115 Professor Josh Blackman Judicial Defiance: Lower Courts Challenge Supreme Court and Trump AdministrationProfessor Josh Blackman details an unprecedented judicial "revolt" where lower federal courts, particularly in Boston, repeatedly defy Supreme Court rulings and temporary restraining orders against the Trump Administration. Cases involve deportation and presidential firing power. Chief Justice Roberts is struggling to make lower courts "get in line," prompting a rare concurrence from Justice Gorsuch criticizing the defiance.1115-1130 Professor Josh Blackman Judicial Defiance: Lower Courts Challenge Supreme Court and Trump AdministrationProfessor Josh Blackman details an unprecedented judicial "revolt" where lower federal courts, particularly in Boston, repeatedly defy Supreme Court rulings and temporary restraining orders against the Trump Administration. Cases involve deportation and presidential firing power. Chief Justice Roberts is struggling to make lower courts "get in line," prompting a rare concurrence from Justice Gorsuch criticizing the defiance. 1130-1145 Bob Zimmerman Space Policy, Launches, and Astronomical Discoveries Bob Zimmerman criticizes the over-budget Artemis lunar program while praising SpaceX's increased launches from Cape Canaveral. He discusses the politically-driven Space Force HQ relocation and NASA's efforts to reduce reliance on Russia for ISS orbit-raising. Global space startups are booming, Starlink cuts prices, and new astronomical discoveries are made.1145-1200CONTINUED Bob Zimmerman Space Policy, Launches, and Astronomical Discoveries Bob Zimmerman criticizes the over-budget Artemis lunar program while praising SpaceX's increased launches from Cape Canaveral. He discusses the politically-driven Space Force HQ relocation and NASA's efforts to reduce reliance on Russia for ISS orbit-raising. Global space startups are booming, Starlink cuts prices, and new astronomical discoveries are made.FOURTH HOUR 12-1215 Simon Constable Global Commodities, French Politics, and 9/11 Reflection Simon Constable discusses commodity trends: copper and gold prices surge due to AI demand and monetary fear, while orange juice falls and coffee rises. He covers France's political crisis, with Sebastien Lecornu becoming the sixth Prime Minister under Macron, and local support for Marine Le Pen's National Rally. He also shares a personal 9/11 account from One World Financial Center.1215-1230CONTINUED Simon Constable Global Commodities, French Politics, and 9/11 Reflection Simon Constable discusses commodity trends: copper and gold prices surge due to AI demand and monetary fear, while orange juice falls and coffee rises. He covers France's political crisis, with Sebastien Lecornu becoming the sixth Prime Minister under Macron, and local support for Marine Le Pen's National Rally. He also shares a personal 9/11 account from One World Financial Center.1230-1245 Grant Newsham Korea's Division, South Korea's Shift, and the Axis of Adversaries Grant Newsham traces Korea's1945 division by US officers, leading to North Korea's establishment. He highlights the pro-North Korea South Korean administration's alignment with China and Russia. The unified appearance of Kim Jong-un, Xi Jinping, and Vladimir Putin at a Beijing parade solidifies them as a formidable "axis of adversaries," intimidating the West.1245-100 AM Michael Bernstam Falling Oil Prices Threaten Russia's Economy, Boost US and Europe Michael Bernstam explains that falling oil prices, forecasted to drop to $50/barrel due to increased OPEC supply, will severely impact Russia'sbudget (based on $70/barrel) and push it towards recession. This benefits US consumers and GDP, while rising US LNGexports fully replace Europe's Russian gas, effectively isolating Russia from the European energy marke

47:21- Hogan Gidley, Former National Press Secretary for the Trump campaign, former White House Deputy Press Secretary, and a Newsmax contributor Topic: Chicago crackdown and the latest from the Trump administration 57:47- Dan Ryan, Senior Digital Advertising Director for the Staten Island Media Group Topic: Celebrating Staten Island 1:07:52- K.T. McFarland, Former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor and the author of "Revolution: Trump, Washington and 'We The People'” Topic: Latest in Russia-Ukraine, other foreign policy and national security issues 1:21:38- Chris Swecker, attorney, Former NC Crime Commission Chair, and Former Assistant Director of the FBI for the Criminal Investigative Division from 2004 to 2006 Topic: Ukrainian refugee killed in North Carolina transit system 1:31:35- Laine Schoneberger, Chief Investment Officer, Managing Partner, and Founder of Yrefy Topic: Latest from Yrefy 1:55:42- 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: SCOTUS allowing Trump ICE raids to resume in California, Trump failing to overturn E. Jean Carroll's $83 million verdict, other legal news of the daySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kate, Leah, and Melissa break down how the lower courts are challenging the Trump administration and expressing their frustration with SCOTUS. Then, they check in with two members of the supermajority: Brett Kavanaugh, who's touting a shiny new shadow docket rebrand, and Amy Coney Barrett as she commences her cursèd book tour. Finally, the hosts speak with Yale Law professor Justin Driver about his book, The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education.Hosts' and guests' favorite things:Kate: Apologies: You Have Reached the End of Your Free-Trial Period of America! By Alexandra Petri (The Atlantic); Bonus 176: Law, Lawlessness, and Doomerism, Steve Vladeck (One First); How a Top Secret SEAL Team 6 Mission Into North Korea Fell Apart, Dave Philipps and Matthew Cole (NYT)Leah: The DC Circuit's Realpolitik Orders in the Foreign Aid Funding Case, Chris Geidner; 174. Justice Gorsuch's Attack on Lower Courts & Bonus 174: Playing the Justices for Fools, Steve Vladeck (One First); The Supreme Court Is Backing Trump's Power Grab, Kate Shaw & Ezra Klein (NYT).Melissa: RFK's Senate Finance Committee hearing; Hijacking the Kennedys, Reeves Waldman (New York Magazine); Nancy Mace: Everything You Didn't Know About Her Sh*tty Past (Crooked's Hysteria); These Summer Storms, Sarah MacLean; Gwyneth: The Biography, Amy OdellJustin: The Creative Act: A Way of Being, Rick Rubin; Martin Luther King's Constitution: A Legal History of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Randall Kennedy (Yale Law Journal) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, we bring you the best of on Labor Day! Critics of President Trump's executive order on American flag burning have not read it and are misrepresenting it, as the order creates no new laws or offenses. It does not run counter to the 1989 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson. Unsurprisingly, most of the media jumped the gun and their favorite NeverTrumpers (among others) joined in the chorus, accusing the president of lawlessness, etc. Also, France's Emmanuel Macron is a disgusting quisling. He thinks it's still Vichy France, where he'd be more comfortable. Kudos to our Ambassador to France, Charles Kushner for calling out antisemitism in France. Also, CNN and similar media are biased against Supreme Court conservatives like Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Alito, who are accused of being "out of control" while upholding the Constitution in rulings favoring the Trump administration on issues like immigration and spending and DEI. Afterward, On Power explains that negative power, particularly its soft form, exists in both open and closed societies and is increasingly prevalent in democracies like America. It emphasizes that a universal order—encompassing nature, morality, values, and beliefs—precedes, transcends, and outlasts all governments, which are temporary human constructs imposing limits on individuals. Humans are not inherently subjects of rulers or governments but are governed by an unamendable supreme law. Valid governments must align with this universal order, while soft negative power persists in civil society (via laws, customs, or social contracts like Locke's) to maintain order, prevent anarchy, and protect individual liberty—even in the best governments. People vote for tyranny then when it takes hold it's too late - that's what will happen if Zohran Mamdani becomes Mayor of NYC. Later, the question media pundits keep asking: what is happening to the democrat party? What happened is that the people have learned a great deal about the Democrat Party and its ideologies over the years and they don't like it. Ideas do have consequences. Educating and reading remain crucial. Unfortunately, too many people with microphones and TV cameras have forgotten about this. Scholarship, history, philosophy still matter. They have always mattered. It's called getting back to basics. Getting back to our founding principles, beliefs, and values, and exposing those who seek to pervert, undermine, and destroy them. The Democrat Party is struggling and failing because it stands for virtually everything most Americans reject. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

51:07- Kerry Picket, White House Correspondent for the Washington Times Topic: President Trump's cabinet meeting 59:29- Gordon Chang, Asia expert, columnist and author of "China is Going to War" Topic: Trump says the U.S. would welcome 600,000 Chinese students 1:26:10- Liz Peek, Fox News contributor, columnist for Fox News and The Hill, and former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company Topic: Trump pranks Democrats into opposing something they've always claimed to support (Fox News op ed) 2:00:22- 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: Legalities of John Bolton FBI raid 2:13:30- Michael Goodwin, Chief Political Columnist for the New York Post Topic: "NY Times chipping away at Chinese meddling in NYC elections is a welcome change – but questions remain" (New York Post op ed)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, critics of President Trump's executive order on American flag burning have not read it and are misrepresenting it, as the order creates no new laws or offenses. It does not run counter to the 1989 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson.  Unsurprisingly, most of the media jumped the gun, and their favorite NeverTrumpers (among others) joined in the chorus, accusing the president of lawlessness, etc. Also, France's Emmanuel Macron is a disgusting quisling. He thinks it's still Vichy France, where he'd be more comfortable.  Kudos to our Ambassador to France, Charles Kushner for calling out antisemitism in France.  Later, CNN and similar media are biased against Supreme Court conservatives like Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Alito, who are accused of being "out of control" while upholding the Constitution in rulings favoring the Trump administration on issues like immigration, spending, and DEI. Afterward, On Power explains that negative power, particularly its soft form, exists in both open and closed societies and is increasingly prevalent in democracies like America. It emphasizes that a universal order—encompassing nature, morality, values, and beliefs—precedes, transcends, and outlasts all governments, which are temporary human constructs imposing limits on individuals. Humans are not inherently subjects of rulers or governments but are governed by an unamendable supreme law. Valid governments must align with this universal order, while soft negative power persists in civil society (via laws, customs, or social contracts like Locke's) to maintain order, prevent anarchy, and protect individual liberty—even in the best governments. People vote for tyranny, then when it takes hold, it's too late   - that's what will happen if Zohran Mamdani becomes Mayor of NYC. Finally, Yael Eckstein, president of the International Fellowship of Christians (IFCJ) and Jews calls in. In Syria, partnering with the Israeli army, IFCJ has provided thousands of food packages and established medical clinics for targeted Christians and Druze. More recently in Suweida, they airlifted life-saving medical supplies and food to a hospital lacking essentials, saving lives from infections and hunger. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

David Waldman is older than he used to be! By an entire year somehow! Congratulations! Also… Armando!  Greg Dworkin is completely different of course, and so is his Raft O' Stories™, although they could all be a distraction from the real story. The Zohran Mamdanimentum keeps growing, because it's fun and Zohran is having fun and New Yorkers are a fun-loving bunch. Similarly, Gavin Newsomentum is building, even though there are Dems out there whose anxiety builds when they see too much fun going on and would like to remind you here in August 2025 that you don't “have to” vote for Gavin in November 2028 if you don't want to. Expect Trump to drop the word “CUCK” into his posts soon in order to get ahead of Newsom comparisons. Or Trump could just have Gavin arrested. Time for some legal problems for Chris Christie. Time for some legal problems for every federal judge in Maryland. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh note that none of these people are either of them. Kilmar Abrego Garcia could inspire this administration to reinstitute crucifixion. Let's pour one out for two Fulton County Dems, Dana Barrett and Mo Ivory, protectors of democracy and presently unincarcerated. Trump will obviously send troops into Chicago. Not because he needs to, but because he wants to. Cheating is so fun that it might not matter if it actually works. Soon we will all have something to cry about. US consumers with prime credit are starting to fall behind in their payments. Millions are being pushed off of Medicaid and Obamacare, no matter what they are being told now. And COVID isn't going away, but the vaccine is. Years of effort have finally paid off. Nancy Mace has finally worn out her welcome.

CannCon and Zak “RedPill78” Paine dive into a packed Monday news cycle, kicking off with reactions to the world premiere of Brad Zerbo's documentary CODEX 9/11 and its explosive revelations. From John Bolton's FBI raid and its deep state implications, to Rick Wilson's meltdown and the Lincoln Project's scandals, the hosts break down the hypocrisy of political elites. They cover Tulsi Gabbard's alleged Five Eyes directive, new Nord Stream pipeline revelations, and Justice Gorsuch slamming rogue lower courts. The discussion heats up with Florida's immigration battles, Trump's nationwide National Guard mobilizations, and fresh Epstein-related disclosures including Maxwell transcripts, DOJ document handovers, and Virginia Giuffre's upcoming memoir. With fiery commentary, sharp analysis, and plenty of humor, this episode pulls no punches on corruption, cover-ups, and the fight for accountability. 

President Trump has scored yet another YUGE win in the US Supreme Court, with the majority upholding the authority of the Article II Executive elected by the whole of the American people to carry out our political will, to DENY FUNDING that was granted on the basis of deranged DEI and racist ideologies.The SCOTUS opinion includes a SCATCHING rebuke of the unelected, tyrannical, inferior, federal district courts who are in OPEN REBELLION against the US Supreme Court, authored by the clearly and justifiably angry Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, both of whom have clearly had enough of the petulant inferior federal judges who simply refuse to accept any limitation whatever on their self-claimed infinite authority in their efforts to achieve their desired political outcomes.And, of course, in an opinion in which eight justices delivering a bundle of four distinct written opinions and dissent in a concise 14 pages, Justice Ketanji “Waffle House” Jackson is unable to restrain herself from consuming an additional full 18 pages to stomp her foot.Jackson extensively denigrates her colleagues on the SCOTUS bench as ruling in an “unprincipled and unfortunate” manner, delivering a decision that only uses “logic (such as it is)”, is “an even bigger mistake than I realized,” is lacking in “deviates dramatically” from “ordinary, commonsense,” and engaging in “Calvinball jurisprudence” in which “there are no fixed rules.” Instead, Justice Waffle House writes in describing this Supreme Court, “we seem to have only two [rules]: that one [that there are no fixed rules], and this Administration always wins.”Contemptible. The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

Advanced Cellular Support + Hydration: https://fortifystore.com/awk/ ——— Protect your investments with And We Know http://andweknow.com/gold Or call 720-605-3900, Tell them “LT” sent you. ------ AT sea with LT. 2026. Caribbean: https://www.inspirationtravel.com/event/lt-caribbean-cruise-2026 ————————— *Our AWK Website: https://www.andweknow.com/ ➜ AWK Shirts and gifts: https://shop.andweknow.com/ ------- The ruling was 5-4. Amy Coney BARRETT, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch side with Trump. https://x.com/its_The_Dr/status/1958673610132136224 President Trump praised federal agents and National Guard soldiers, https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958660308882661803 Secretary Sean Duffy says Washington shouldn't have licensed the commercial truck driver who got a non-domiciled license in California. He'll check states and take action. https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958638509876756725 Tulsi Gabbard says the Deep State has been in our government and intelligence agencies for a long time, before Obama and Clinton. Under the President's leadership, they are working to remove these bad actors. https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958636152124256412 "I don't care what your political party is. We've got to take America's streets back for the American people." https://x.com/theblaze/status/1958593909547835694 An illegal alien who killed three people with a semi-truck was seen boarding a plane to be extradited to Florida. Governor Ron DeSantis said he'll face severe consequences. https://x.com/andweknow/status/1958588370973577419 ——  *DONATIONS SITE: https://bit.ly/2Lgdrh5 *Mail your gift to: And We Know 30650 Rancho California Rd STE D406-123 (or D406-126) Temecula, CA 92591 ➜ AWK Shirts and gifts: https://shop.andweknow.com/ ➜ Audio Bible https://www.biblegateway.com/audio/mclean/kjv/1John.3.16 Connect with us in the following ways: + DISCORD Fellows: https://discord.gg/kMt8R2FC4z

This episode of TRP Podcast is dedicated to Uncle Tom Luckey of Humbolt, Tennessee. Today is his funeral at Antioch Baptist Church in Humbolt, not far from the farm on which he grew up and worked his entire life. The time stamps for Uncle Tom comments are as follows: 1) at the beginning, 2) minute 42-43, 3) the one hour mark, 4) and at the very ending few minutes. The rest is about why Gorsuch is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 5 in a series) about his faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- a real hoot. Part 5: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral III.A , and stop at his III.B. We'll cover his III.B next time. Part 5. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

We Like Shooting Episode 622 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries, Swampfox Optics, RMA Defense, XTech Tactical, Night Fision, and Mitchell Defense   Welcome to the We Like Shooting Show, episode 622! Our cast tonight is Jeremy Pozderac, Aaron Krieger, Nick Lynch, and me Shawn Herrin, welcome to the show!   GOALS   August 9th and 10th in Knoxville, Tennessee. Knoxville Convention Center Free to GOA members https://events.goa.org/goals/   If you were at GunCon and are attending GOALS. Don't forget to get some pics with the cast to claim your free shirt.   Guest: Jon Patton - The Gun Collective https://www.instagram.com/theguncollective/?hl=en @theguncollective   Gear Chat Nick - MP5 News Drop MP5 update Pew Deals   Bullet Points Shawn - Weekly P320 Updates P320 Weekly changes FFL NCIC gun lookup Gun Fights Step right up for "Gun Fights," the high-octane segment hosted by Nick Lynch, where our cast members go head-to-head in a game show-style showdown! Each contestant tries to prove their gun knowledge dominance. It's a wild ride of bids, bluffs, and banter—who will come out on top? Tune in to find out! WLS is Lifestyle GunCon Fun GunCon Aaron's Alley Justices are getting old, what needs to be done Clarence Thomas: 75  Samuel Alito: 73  Sonia Sotomayor: 69  John Roberts: 69  Elena Kagan: 63  Brett Kavanaugh: 58  Neil Gorsuch: 56  Ketanji Brown Jackson: 53  Amy Coney Barrett: 52 Going Ballistic Gun Rights: No ifs, ands, or buts Contrast this The Right to Bear Laughs With this Guns in the Capitol? Sure! New Proposal Would Permit Concealed Carry In Michigan State Capitol Building Silencer Showdown: ATF vs. Truth Why Silencer Shop Is Suing the ATF and DOJ Over the NFA Gun Control Hysteria: Here We Go Again That Evil AR-15 Again: Media Spins Rifles, Suppressors, and the Shane Tamura Shooting Reviews ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - EH EYE  “The only gun podcast that could survive the Dungeon.” Welcome to We Like Shooting, reimagined as if the hosts were thrown into the blood-soaked arenas of the Dungeon Crawler Carl universe and somehow made it funnier, louder, and deadlier.    Aaron steps into the shoes of Mordecai, always plotting and sometimes prepared. He has an opinion on everything, though nobody's really listening, and he probably carries a cursed artifact nobody wants to touch. Shawn is Carl, the reluctant, self important hero who's just trying to keep the podcast from collapsing under its own insanity plus, he loves walking around with no pants on. Nick perfectly fits Princess Donut, setting fashion trends for both guns and camouflage patterns that Shawn will obviously follow. He believes a rifle should both slay and match your entire loadout. Jeremy is Samantha, bringing pure chaos, carnage, and a voice so loud it could punch through walls. Also, his mouth is almost always open like a sex doll. And Savage1r is our Prepotente, the all-knowing, no-nonsense goat who drops stats and laws while silently judging everyone and laughing at his own jokes. Each episode is a wild mix of honest firearm talk, tactical insight, ridiculous banter, and just the right amount of madness. You'll get gear reviews, heated debates, political hot takes, and the kind of chemistry only a group this dysfunctional could create. If you want a podcast that's smart, unfiltered, and unapologetically fun, We Like Shooting might just be the only gun show crazy enough to survive the Dungeon and make you laugh the whole way through. It's smart. It's unhinged. It's the most fun you'll have while learning about firearms and the only podcast where a talking goat might bore you to death.   ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - from Lo Hung-Huang - Five stars Five stars, Wow he put five stars again.

Part 4: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral II.C and the first two paragraphs of Roman Numeral III only in this episode, and stop at his III.A. We'll cover his III.A next time. Part 4. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

This Day in Legal History: Patent Office OpenedOn this day in legal history, July 31, 1790, the United States issued its first patent under the newly created Patent Act of 1790. The inaugural patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins of Vermont for a process of making potash, an essential industrial chemical used in soap and fertilizer production. Signed by President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, this first patent reflected the constitutional mandate to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”The Patent Act established a system that allowed inventors to secure exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited time, fostering a culture of innovation. Unlike today's process, early patents required a review by a board of Cabinet-level officials and carried no numbering system—Hopkins' patent is only retroactively considered Patent No. 1.This moment marked the beginning of formal intellectual property protection in the U.S., setting the foundation for one of the world's most robust patent systems. The legal infrastructure created that year would evolve into the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, playing a central role in industrial and technological development over the next two centuries. It was a clear sign of the young republic's commitment to innovation through legal means.A White House report released Wednesday by President Trump's crypto working group calls for swift regulatory action on digital assets. The administration urged Congress to pass a comprehensive crypto bill, such as the Clarity Act, while advocating for key additions. These include allowing platforms to both trade and hold crypto, and tailoring disclosure requirements for crypto securities. The report also recommends giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority over crypto spot markets and embracing decentralized finance technologies.In addition to legislative suggestions, the White House wants the SEC and CFTC to act under their current powers to enable federal-level trading of digital assets. The report promotes using tools like safe harbors and regulatory sandboxes to accelerate access to new financial products, including tokenized assets like real estate and stocks. This approach reflects Trump's broader campaign promise to foster crypto innovation, in sharp contrast to the Biden administration's enforcement-heavy stance, which included lawsuits against major exchanges that have since been dropped.Despite concerns over potential conflicts of interest—given Trump's family's crypto ventures and his personal stake in a crypto platform—the administration has denied any impropriety. The report's findings could significantly shape the direction of ongoing legislative negotiations and regulatory frameworks.White House in crypto policy report calls for SEC action, new legislation | ReutersA proposed budget from the U.S. House of Representatives threatens major cuts to the federal public defense system, according to a July 25 memo from Judge Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. If enacted, the judiciary warns it may be forced to eliminate more than 600 positions in the Defender Services program or delay payments to court-appointed defense attorneys by over two months—potentially the longest such delay ever.The $8.9 billion budget plan advanced by the House Appropriations Committee's financial services subcommittee increases overall judiciary funding by 3.5%, but it still falls significantly short of what the courts requested. Specifically, the $1.57 billion allocated to Defender Services is $196 million less than needed, despite being an 8.2% increase from the previous year. This shortfall could impair the judiciary's ability to meet its constitutional obligations under Gideon v. Wainwright, which requires that indigent criminal defendants receive legal representation.The judiciary is also currently experiencing a funding gap that has already caused a three-month delay in payments to Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel attorneys. Without additional funding, the delay could extend to 77 days next year, further weakening the public defense infrastructure. The judiciary has asked for $116 million in supplemental funding to stabilize the program.The full House Appropriations Committee is not expected to take up the bill until September, and the Senate has not yet released its version.US House budget threatens over 600 public defender jobs, judiciary warns | ReutersUber is facing a pivotal legal challenge in California state court over its responsibility to protect riders from sexual assault by its drivers. A hearing before Judge Ethan Schulman will determine whether hundreds of consolidated cases move forward as bellwether jury trials this fall. These cases center on whether Uber should be liable for assaults allegedly committed by drivers who, plaintiffs argue, exploited Uber's lack of mandatory training, in-vehicle cameras, or stricter vetting.Uber defends itself by claiming drivers are independent contractors and that criminal behavior is unforeseeable, not the company's legal responsibility. It points to safety measures like GPS tracking and background checks as fulfilling its obligations. However, plaintiffs argue that Uber promoted itself as a safe alternative for intoxicated riders and should be held to the higher duty of care expected of a “common carrier,” similar to taxi services.A central legal issue is whether Uber's conduct constitutes misfeasance—actively creating risk—or nonfeasance—failing to prevent harm. Under California law, a company with a “special relationship” with its customers, like a common carrier, must exercise “utmost care.” A federal judge has already ruled that Uber qualifies as a common carrier in related litigation.Uber's broader legal strategy has included challenging consolidated suits through the Ninth Circuit and supporting a Nevada ballot measure to limit plaintiffs' attorneys' fees—both of which failed. Legal experts note Uber faces an uphill battle, as courts are increasingly viewing ride-hailing platforms as more than passive intermediaries.Uber's Legal Duty to Riders at Forefront of Mass Assault CasesEric Tung, President Trump's nominee for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, defended controversial past remarks on gender roles during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. Democratic senators, particularly Alex Padilla and Dick Durbin, pressed Tung over statements he made as a Yale undergraduate in 2004, where he criticized radical feminists and asserted that gender roles support institutions like marriage. Padilla called the comments “reprehensible,” while Durbin challenged Tung's recent views as expressed at a Federalist Society event, where Tung appeared to reject constitutional protections for abortion, same-sex marriage, and private sexual conduct.Tung explained that his undergraduate comments were based on his belief at the time that men and women had complementary roles and that the family should be strengthened. He noted that his wife has had a distinguished professional and political career, arguing she excels in many areas. Though he affirmed that Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, is binding precedent, he declined to discuss his personal views on gender roles, citing potential future cases.Tung, a former clerk for Justices Scalia and Gorsuch and a partner at Jones Day, emphasized his originalist and textualist judicial philosophy. Despite strong backing from Republicans on the panel, Democrats criticized his ideological leanings and questioned his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the influential appellate court.Trump appellate court nominee defends comments on 'gender roles' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of Badlands Book Club, Ashe in America and CannCon tackle Chapter 7 of Overruled, where Gorsuch and Nitze dissect the blurred lines between Congress, the executive branch, and the ever-expanding regulatory state. Ashe breaks down how Congress has increasingly outsourced lawmaking to unelected bureaucrats, creating an alphabet soup of agencies that operate outside traditional checks and balances. CannCon raises the question of accountability, especially as courts defer to agency interpretations in the absence of clear laws. They explore how political cowardice and convenience have allowed regulatory bodies to become the de facto lawmakers of the land, with little regard for voter input or constitutional limits. With personal anecdotes, sharp legal observations, and timely parallels to current political dynamics, Ashe and CannCon spotlight how the separation of powers has eroded, and what it will take to rein it back in.

53:31- Gregg Jarrett, Legal and political analyst for Fox News Channel and the author of "The Trial Of The Century"Topic: DOJ receives Tulsi Gabbard's criminal referral on claims against Obama administration 1:13:07- K.T. McFarland, Former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor and the author of "Revolution: Trump, Washington and 'We The People'” Topic: Iran nuclear enrichment 1:28:09- Art Del Cueto, Vice-President of the National Border Patrol Council Topic: Border Patrol agent shot in New York 1:49:49- Gianno Caldwell, Fox News Political Analyst, founder of the Caldwell Institute for Public Safety and the host of the "Outloud with Gianno Caldwell" podcast Topic: Cuomo saying he will move to Florida if Mamdani wins and other New Yorkers fleeing to Florida 2:04:39- 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: DOJ receiving Tulsi Gabbard criminal referral, federal judge blocking the Trump administration from defunding some Planned Parenthood sites 2:13:36- Gerry Dworkin, Technical Consultant for Aquatics Safety and Water Rescue at Lifesaving Resources Topic: The drowning death of Malcolm-Jamal Warner and safety tips for those swimming in the oceanSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Badlands Book Club, CannCon and Ashe in America explore Chapter 6 of Overruled by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze, delving into the tension between ordered liberty and oppressive regulation. They highlight stories of ordinary Americans, foster parents sidelined over faith, hair braiders and eyebrow threaders crushed by arbitrary licensing laws, and recovering addicts devastated by pandemic isolation. The reading underscores how overreaching rules, from cosmetology mandates to emergency COVID edicts, systematically erode community bonds and self-reliance. The hosts reflect on the paradox of laws meant to protect freedom but increasingly used to control dissent, shut down small businesses, and undermine civic trust. Drawing connections to modern ideological warfare and the deliberate centralization of authority, they share frustrations and cautionary lessons. The conversation closes with a call to reclaim sovereignty by resisting demoralization, defending the right to associate, and standing firm against bureaucratic overreach.

SCOTUSblog contributor and EmpiricalSCOTUS analyst Adam Feldman joins us for a recap of the 2024–25 Supreme Court term. We dive into the end-of-term Stat Pack, ideological surprises, dissent patterns, and whether the Court is still a 6–3 conservative lock—or something more nuanced.We discuss:Headlines make an opinion a “blockbuster,” but what really makes it significant?How Justice Kagan ended up in the majority more than some of the conservatives.Why Justice Kavanaugh writes so many concurrences.Does the emergency docket (aka “shadow docket”) confound the predictability of legal outcomes?Gorsuch's libertarian streak, Barrett's evolving voice, and Thomas's prolific pen.Is the Court 3–3–3? Or just a 6-3 with what Adam calls a “soft middle”?SCOTUS opinion length, voting blocs, and coalition patterns—and why they matter to your next cert petition.Tune in to learn how to read between the majority lines—and what might be coming in the 2025–26 term.

33:39- Scott Jennings, host of "The Scott Jennings Show" on the Salem Radio Network beginning July 14th, CNN contributor, and the author of the upcoming book "A Revolution of Common Sense: How Donald Trump Stormed Washington and Fought for Western Civilization" Topic: Tariffs, Secret Service, other news of the day 47:20- Daniel Hoffman, Ret. CIA Senior Clandestine Services Officer and a Fox News Contributor Topic: Investigation into John Brennan, "Battle damage assessment will determine next steps in Iran" (Washington Examiner op ed) 59:45- Sgt. Joseph Imperatrice, Founder of Blue Lives Matter NYC with 19 years of law enforcement experience primarily in the Detective Bureau field Topic: NYPD blocked from firing 31 officers who failed background checks 1:22:59- Jen Kelly, Republican political strategist & the host of "The Jennifer Kelly Show" beginning July 14th from 5:30-6 am on AM 970 The Answer Topic: Her new show, news of the day 1:33:50- Assemblyman Dov Hikind, former New York State Assemblyman and the son of holocaust survivors Topic: Jewish politicians urged to join "Jews for Mamdani" movement 1:42:22- Art Del Cueto, Vice-President of the National Border Patrol Council Topic: Faids raiding a pot farm allegedly employing illegal workers 1:56:34- 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: Federal judge blocking Trump's birthright citizenship ban for all infantsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On June 27, the Supreme Court wrapped up its extraordinarily consequential, controversial, and, at times, surprising term. Imani and Jess break down the best and worst of the 2024-2025 opinions, and what it could mean for the future of the nation. All that and… alligators? Tune into the final episode of this season of Boom! Lawyered.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here.

On June 27, the Supreme Court wrapped up its extraordinarily consequential, controversial, and, at times, surprising term. Imani and Jess break down the best and worst of the 2024-2025 opinions, and what it could mean for the future of the nation. All that and… alligators? Tune into the final episode of this season of Boom! Lawyered.Episodes like this take time, research, and a commitment to the truth. If Boom! Lawyered helps you understand what's at stake in our courts, chip in to keep our fearless legal analysis alive. Become a supporter today.The Fallout is back and better than ever. In her revamped weekly column, Jess and other guest experts will explore the judges, court cases, legal news, and laws that affect your day-to-day life. Subscribe to the newsletter here.

It's Friday, June 27th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Pakistani Court acquits Christian man of blasphemy against Islam On June 25th, the Pakistani Supreme Court ordered the acquittal of an elderly Christian man on death row for 23 years on a blasphemy against Islam conviction, reports Morning Star News. A three-judge bench acquitted Anwar Kenneth, age 72, of the blasphemy allegations. His attorney, Rana Hameed, himself a Muslim, explained that a person of unsound mind could not be held liable for such a crime. He added that this case highlights the plight of dozens of other blasphemy prisoners who are also suffering from mental health challenges, yet their cases have been pending for years. Defense Secretary Hegseth defends success of bombing Iran Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended President Trump's characterization that the Iranian nuclear sites were obliterated. HEGSETH: “President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history. And it was a resounding success, resulting in a cease fire agreement and the end of the 12 Day War. “There's been a lot of discussion about what happened and what didn't happen. Step back for a second. Because of decisive military action, President Trump created the conditions to end the war, decimating, choose your word, obliterating, destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities.” At a press conference at the NATO Summit in The Hague, Netherlands on June 25th, Secretary Hegseth added this. HEGSETH: “There's a reason the President calls out fake news for what it is. These pilots, these refuelers, these fighters, these air defenders -- the skill and the courage it took to go into enemy territory, flying 36 hours, on behalf of the American people and the world to take out a nuclear program is beyond what anyone in this audience can fathom. “And then, the instinct of CNN, the instinct of The New York Times is to try to find a way to spin it for their own political reasons, to try to hurt President Trump or our country. They don't care what the troops think. They don't care what the world thinks. They want to spin it to try to make him look bad based on a leak. “What do leakers do? They have agendas. And what do they do? Do they share the whole information, or just the part that they want to introduce? And when they introduce that preliminary report, that's deemed to be a low assessment, you know, a low assessment means low confidence in the data in that report. “And why is there low confidence? Because all of the evidence of what was just bombed by twelve 30,000-pound bombs is buried under a mountain, devastated and obliterated. So, if you want to make an assessment of what happened at Fordow, you better get a big shovel and go really deep, because Iran's nuclear program is obliterated. “Somebody, somewhere is trying to leak something to say, ‘Oh, with low confidence, we think maybe it's moderate.'  Those that dropped the bombs precisely in the right place know exactly what happened when that exploded. And you know who else knows?  Iran! “That's why they came to the table right away because their nuclear capabilities have been set back beyond what they thought were possible because of the courage of a Commander-in-Chief who led our troops, despite what the fake news wants to say.” Supreme Court rules South Carolina can defund Planned Parenthood In a 6-3 decision yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina has the right to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business, reports LifeNews. The pro-life state wants to be able to block taxpayer funding for the abortion business under Medicaid, but the abortion company sued to block that action. The Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina has the power to block funding. In the decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court said Medicaid laws do not give individuals the right to bring federal lawsuits against states. The high court's ruling means that the state can direct Medicaid funding—funds intended to help low-income individuals obtain necessary medical assistance—to comprehensive health care rather than entities that exist primarily to perform abortions. South Carolina Republican Governor Henry McMaster issued executive orders barring the pro-abortion organization from receiving reimbursements for non-abortion services like cancer screenings, STD testing, and contraception -- arguing that the funding just frees the abortion business to spend funds killing babies. Governor McMaster is living up to the command of Proverbs 31:8 which says, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt weighed in. LEAVITT: “As for the Supreme Court ruling, the President has always maintained that Americans should not be forced to violate their conscience and their religious liberty by having their tax dollars fund abortions, and we're glad the Supreme Court ruled on that side.” Two who stopped gunman at Michigan church hailed as heroes Two members of CrossPointe Community Church in Wayne, Michigan are being hailed as heroes for helping to stop a gunman who attempted to carry out a mass shooting during the church's worship service this past Sunday, reports the Christian Post. The men, Deacon Richard Pryor and Ron Amann, a member of the church's security team, are being celebrated for their efforts in stopping 31-year-old Brian Browning. According to the police report cited by the Detroit Free Press, Browning, the gunman, was dressed in camouflage clothing and a tactical vest as he approached the church entrance armed with an AR-15-style rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition. He opened fire at the church shortly after 11:00am. Steven Lewellyn, a fellow church member, wrote, "Richard was in the parking lot and saw the shooter walking towards the door. In a moment of quick thinking and incredible bravery, Richard sped towards the man, hitting him with his truck and giving armed security crucial extra seconds to get to the scene and prevent further harm." The gunman shot multiple rounds into the truck, but thankfully did not hurt Richard Pryor, who was running late for church that morning. Providentially, just three days before the shooting, Ron Amann told WXYZ that he was one of three members of the church's safety team who attended training at Peacemakers Shooting Range. AMANN: “When we formed this team, I just knew it was my calling to protect my family and my church family.” Amann described what he heard last Sunday. AMANN: "Popping, a pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop noise that I couldn't quite identify. It stopped. I heard it again, and probably within a few seconds after that, someone came running in the back of the sanctuary and said, there's a shooter out there.” After he sent his family to safety, he ran toward the shooting. AMANN: "He [shooter] was sitting on the ground with a rifle, and he was sitting away from me, so he turned to make a sweep of the glass with his gun and just held the trigger and shot through. "He just started spraying bullets into the lobby, went through the glass, shattered it, and then, that's when it caught my leg and spun me around.” Another member of the church's safety team, Jay Trombley, fatally shot Browning. Amann is convinced that God prepared them for that moment. AMANN: “Being a person of faith and having a relationship with God, I believe He orchestrated all of the preparations and prepared us exactly for what we encountered.” Kate Dunphy, the organizer of the GoFundMe campaign for the church security volunteer who was shot in the leg, wrote, "Ron's tibia was shattered and required extensive surgery to place a rod at the leg injury. This injury will have approximately 3-5 months of physical recovery and rehabilitation. God spared Ron's life and was mighty in His protection over the security team and congregation.” She cited Psalm 37:23-24 which says, “The steps of a man are established by the LORD, when He delights in His way; though he fall, he shall not be cast headlong, for the LORD upholds his hand.” I want to hear from children under the age of 18 I would love to share 3 emails on Monday, June 30th from kids between the ages of 5 and 17 who listen to The Worldview.  What do you like about this Christian newscast? And why would you urge listeners who have not yet given, to make a donation to help pay for our team to put it all together? Parents, for the younger ones, please include their full name, city and state. Just ask them those two questions and type up their answers. Better yet, if you record a short 15 to 30-second video on your phone, you can email that to me, and I'll grab the audio from it. Send the email to Adam@TheWorldview.com One last thing. Don't forget to include their age. 6 Worldview listeners gave $1,393 to fund our annual budget And finally, toward our $123,500 goal by Monday, June 30th to fully fund The Worldview's annual budget for our 6-member team, 6 listeners stepped up to the plate yesterday. We're grateful to God for Pat in Park Ridge, Illinois who gave $25, Joshua in Goddard, Kansas who gave $50, and Jody in Westerlo, New York who gave $100. And we were touched by the generosity of Rose in Everson, Washington who gave $118, Ann in Albuquerque, New Mexico who gave $500, and David in Crestview, Florida who pledged $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600. Those 6 Worldview listeners gave $1,393. Plus, we've tallied up the one-time donations to The Worldview between January 1, 2025 and May 31, 2025 and they total $8,625. In addition, we totaled the existing monthly pledges to The Worldview which preceded June 1st, and they total $23,160. Between the 6 new donations which came in yesterday and the donations which preceded the beginning of this month-long fundraiser, listeners have given a total of $33,178. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please.  (Drum roll sound effect) $104,086.55 (People clapping and cheering sound effect)   That means by this coming Monday, June 30th, we need to raise $19,413.45 in just 4 days.  That's $4,853 per day! We are getting so close! We just need to find the final 8 people to pledge $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200.  And another 16 people to pledge $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600. Is the Lord tugging on your heart right now? Go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give on the top right.  If you want to make it a monthly pledge, click on the recurring tab. Help fund this Christian newscast for another year with accurate news, relevant Bible verses, compelling soundbites, uplifting stories, and practical action steps. How awesome would it be if you helped give or pledge that money by 12 midnight central tonight, June 27th? If you've been waiting until the last minute to get us across the finish line, this is your time to shine.  We can do this people! Go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give right now while you're thinking about it. Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, June 27th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Holly and Tracy talk about Tracy growing up in a mostly Protestant community with little exposure to Catholicism. They also talk about the Gorsuch family's ties to John Wilkes Booth. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sarah Isgur and David French check the temperature on Thursday's Supreme Court hand downs (cold term, anyone?), diving into a case where federal agents raided the wrong house. The Agenda:—Death penalty stuff and successive habeas petitions—Gorsuch the libertarian—FBI raid gone wrong—Explaining the Federal Tort Claims Act and Bivens—Conspiracy theory time—Associated Press and their access to press—We're all ‘cranckpots' —Is yoga protected by the First Amendment? Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The five men on the Supreme Court are so easily triggered and seem to be making law based on their emotional needs. Meanwhile, they also see discrimination in some of the best things about America—like equality or the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. And at the White House, the press office got totally bored with the worshipful questions from MAGA media and invited The Bulwark's Andrew Egger over—so Karoline Leavitt could mix it up with a reporter who'd definitely ask tough questions. Plus, Trump's crypto grift reaches new heights, Gorsuch is oddly obsessed with the EPA, and the toadies are getting whipsawed by the constant tariff adjustments. Leah Litman and Andrew Egger join Tim Miller. show notes Leah's book, "Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes" Leah's "Strict Scrutiny" podcast Tuesday's "Morning Shots" newsletter