Podcasts about rehnquist

This Day in Legal History: William Rehnquist BornOn October 1, 1924, William Hubbs Rehnquist, the 16th Chief Justice of the United States, was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Appointed to the Supreme Court in 1972 by President Nixon, Rehnquist became a polarizing figure, known for his staunch conservatism and originalist approach to the Constitution. His judicial philosophy often focused on restricting federal authority and bolstering states' rights, positions that critics argued rolled back civil rights protections and hindered federal progress on social justice issues. In 1986, President Reagan elevated Rehnquist to Chief Justice, a decision that pushed the Court further right. At his swearing-in, Reagan hailed him as a defender of constitutional values, but opponents viewed his appointment as the solidification of an increasingly reactionary judiciary. The same ceremony saw Antonin Scalia, another conservative, sworn in, signaling a shift that would influence rulings on affirmative action, voting rights, and church-state separation.Rehnquist's tenure included controversial rulings, notably his role in Bush v. Gore (2000), which critics argue undermined democratic principles by halting the Florida recount and effectively deciding a presidential election. His leadership on the Court was also marked by decisions that curtailed congressional power under the Commerce Clause, weakening federal authority in areas like civil rights and environmental regulation. While his supporters celebrated him as a guardian of limited government, his legacy remains contentious, with lasting impacts on the Court's direction and the balance between federal and state power.A fun Rehnquist fact is that you'll see in any official pictures or portraits of him as Chief Justice, his sleeves have yellow arm bands. Rehnquist insisted on adding four gold stripes on each sleeve to distinguish himself from the associate justices. He was inspired by the costume of the Lord Chancellor in a production of the Gilbert and Sullivan opera Iolanthe. Rehnquist's addition of the stripes was an unusual departure from the traditional plain black robes worn by justices, and it became a symbol of his unique approach to the role.New York Mayor Eric Adams has brought on three high-profile litigators as he faces federal criminal charges. William Burck, a former George W. Bush White House lawyer and current Fox Corp. board member, is one of the lawyers advising Adams. Burck, known for representing figures like Stephen Bannon and Don McGahn, joins Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan partners John Bash III and Avi Perry on Adams' defense team. Alex Spiro, a partner at Quinn Emanuel with experience defending high-profile clients like Elon Musk, is leading the defense. The charges involve allegations that Adams accepted lavish travel perks and had improper ties to the Turkish government. Adams has denied wrongdoing and vowed to continue as mayor while fighting the charges. His legal team has requested the case's dismissal.Meanwhile, a legal defense fund for Adams has paid over $877,000 to law firm WilmerHale, and several staffers have left his administration amid ongoing investigations. Additionally, Theresa Hassler was recently appointed general counsel for the Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City, a nonprofit under scrutiny for its fundraising practices.Ex-Bannon Lawyer With Fox News Ties Joins NYC Mayor Defense TeamToday, on October 1, 2024, a Georgia judge will hear a challenge from Democrats against new election rules introduced by the Republican-led Georgia Election Board. These rules, approved in August, allow county officials to investigate discrepancies in vote counts and scrutinize election-related documents before certifying results. Democrats argue that these changes, which came just before the November 5 election, are designed to erode trust in the process and could delay certification. The rules were backed by three board members who are allies of Donald Trump, who continues to challenge his 2020 loss in Georgia. Trump has praised these board members for their efforts to increase election security, though critics, including Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, say the changes could undermine voter confidence and strain election workers.A separate lawsuit was also filed to block a new requirement for a hand count of ballots. Democrats contend that these rules create confusion and provide too much leeway for local officials to investigate alleged fraud, potentially delaying results. The trial in Fulton County Superior Court is part of a broader national focus on battleground states like Georgia, where both Republicans and Democrats are intensely focused ahead of the upcoming presidential election.Challenge by US Democrats to Georgia election rules goes to trial | ReutersAs artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform industries, more U.S. law firms are appointing executives to lead AI initiatives. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and McDermott Will & Emery both announced new AI leadership hires, with Akin appointing Jeff Westcott as director of practice technology and AI innovation, and McDermott hiring Christopher Cyrus as director of AI innovation. These moves reflect the growing belief that AI will have a permanent role in the legal profession, particularly in areas like research, drafting legal documents, and reducing administrative tasks.Law firms are responding to client expectations and the surge in AI technologies, which have expanded dramatically in the past two years. Other firms, such as Covington & Burling, Latham & Watkins, and Reed Smith, have similarly created AI and data science roles since the rise of tools like ChatGPT. Westcott will focus on how Akin Gump can strategically invest in AI technology, assessing whether to develop tools in-house, purchase products, or partner with vendors.Additionally, legal AI startup Harvey's chief strategy officer, Gordon Moodie, transitioned to Debevoise & Plimpton as a partner specializing in mergers and acquisitions. These developments underscore the legal industry's growing focus on AI integration as firms aim to remain competitive and adapt to technological advances.More US law firms turn to executives for AI leadership 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

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by award-winning documentarian and lawyer Dawn Porter for a conversation about two projects shining a light on the law and how we can shape it: Porter's new Showtime documentary series Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court, and the paperback release of Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America.  Together they trace the political shifts and cultural earthquakes from the Warren Court to the Burger, Rehnquist and now Roberts Court, and they discuss how the courts current crisis of legitimacy cannot be cured with a moratorium on criticism. In both Lady Justice and Deadlocked a truth surfaces: when it comes to the rule of law, there is no “plan b”, so the challenge to Dawn's audience, Dahlia's readers and Amicus listeners is the same: to use the law as a tool for progress and justice.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is now out in paperback. It is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. https://books.supportingcast.fm/lady-justice Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by award-winning documentarian and lawyer Dawn Porter for a conversation about two projects shining a light on the law and how we can shape it: Porter's new Showtime documentary series Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court, and the paperback release of Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America.  Together they trace the political shifts and cultural earthquakes from the Warren Court to the Burger, Rehnquist and now Roberts Court, and they discuss how the courts current crisis of legitimacy cannot be cured with a moratorium on criticism. In both Lady Justice and Deadlocked a truth surfaces: when it comes to the rule of law, there is no “plan b”, so the challenge to Dawn's audience, Dahlia's readers and Amicus listeners is the same: to use the law as a tool for progress and justice.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book  Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is now out in paperback. It is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. https://books.supportingcast.fm/lady-justice Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by award-winning documentarian and lawyer Dawn Porter for a conversation about two projects shining a light on the law and how we can shape it: Porter's new Showtime documentary series Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court, and the paperback release of Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America.  Together they trace the political shifts and cultural earthquakes from the Warren Court to the Burger, Rehnquist and now Roberts Court, and they discuss how the courts current crisis of legitimacy cannot be cured with a moratorium on criticism. In both Lady Justice and Deadlocked a truth surfaces: when it comes to the rule of law, there is no “plan b”, so the challenge to Dawn's audience, Dahlia's readers and Amicus listeners is the same: to use the law as a tool for progress and justice.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is now out in paperback. It is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. https://books.supportingcast.fm/lady-justice Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Republicans claim the election was stolen. They use those claims to justify suppressing people's right to vote. All of it happening amid a national reckoning on race. Rachel Maddow and Isaac-Davy Aronson tell the story of a time uncannily similar to our own – in the early 1960s. And how it's both a parallel to our present moment and the origin of conflicts playing out today.Featuring Guests:Rick Perlstein, historian, author of Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American ConsensusSherrilyn Ifill, Vernon Jordan Endowed Chair in Civil Rights at Howard University and former President and Director-Counsel of LDF.Jim Brosnahan, lawyer and author of Justice At Trial: Courtroom Battles and Groundbreaking Cases

On this day, June 21st, in legal history, flag burning was held to be protected by the First Amendment when the Supreme Court decision was handed down in Texas v. Johnson. In the case of Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that a Texas flag desecration law violated the First Amendment. The case revolved around Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned a U.S. flag during protests at the 1984 Republican National Convention. He was charged under a Texas law criminalizing flag desecration, but his conviction was overturned by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.Justice William J. Brennan Jr., writing for the majority, argued that expressive conduct, including flag burning, is protected by the First Amendment. The Court rejected Texas' argument that it was trying to prevent breaches of the peace and protect the flag as a symbol of nationhood. Brennan emphasized that the government cannot ban expression simply because it may provoke violence or is disagreeable, as such expression lies at the core of First Amendment values.In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice John Paul Stevens focused on the value of the flag. Rehnquist likened flag burning to "fighting words," while Stevens expressed concern about the potential devaluation of the flag's symbolic nature.The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Texas v. Johnson decision a year later in United States v. Eichman (1990) by striking down the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which was enacted in response to the earlier ruling. Since then, flag burning has been a contentious issue, with repeated attempts in Congress to overturn the Court's decision through a constitutional amendment. However, these attempts have fallen short of the required votes.Stephen Swedlow, a former partner at Quinn Emanuel, made a somewhat surprising career move by leaving the prestigious Big Law firm to become a traffic court judge in Cook County, Illinois. Swedlow, who had a successful career handling major litigation cases and earning millions of dollars, decided to pursue public service and put his skills to use in the judiciary. Partners at top law firms typically stay until retirement, but Swedlow chose to step down and invest nearly $1 million of his own money to serve as a judge at the lowest levels of the state's judiciary.In his new role, Swedlow presides over DUI trials and traffic violations, handling as many as 300 cases a day, mostly through Zoom. Despite the change from high-profile billion-dollar court fights to the less glamorous traffic court, Swedlow finds fulfillment in the human drama and the opportunity to contribute to the legal system. He has adjusted to the administrative tasks involved in organizing Zoom meetings and managing the proceedings.During his time at Quinn Emanuel, Swedlow led significant cases, including defending Qualcomm against Apple in a trade secrets lawsuit and representing health insurance companies in a suit over unpaid Obamacare subsidies. The firm could potentially earn $185 million in fees from one of Swedlow's cases, but the final payment is pending appeals.Swedlow's decision to transition to the bench surprised some colleagues, but he expressed a desire for a better work-life balance and more time with his children. Despite the substantial pay cut, he felt he had already made enough money and was ready for a new challenge in public service. Swedlow hopes to become a civil trial court judge in the future, but for now, he is working his way up the judicial ladder, handling small claims, personal injury, and eviction cases.This story is offered here just as an example of a potential landing place for folks looking to make a move. Top Quinn Emanuel Partner Starts Over as Traffic Court JudgeDisciplinary proceedings have begun against John Eastman, the lawyer behind former President Donald Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Eastman faces 11 disciplinary charges related to his development of a controversial legal strategy aimed at helping Trump stay in power by disrupting the counting of state electoral votes. The strategy involved encouraging Vice President Mike Pence to consider slates of electors filed by pro-Trump activists in seven states, even though no legislatures had adopted Eastman's plan. Pence's aides strongly resisted the plan, arguing that he lacked the legal authority and warning that courts would not uphold it.Eastman's plan was designed to avoid going to court and instead relied on key actors asserting their power to carry out the preferred actions. He argues that his advice was a tenable interpretation of the law and that a good-faith dispute should not result in professional consequences. During the proceedings, Eastman defended his claims of voter fraud in Georgia and his suggestion that the 2020 election in Wisconsin could be decertified and Joe Biden removed. Despite the chaos that ensued, Eastman expressed no regret or misgivings about his actions.The disciplinary proceedings could potentially result in Eastman losing his license to practice law in California.John Eastman's plan to keep Trump in power faces a reckoning, as authorities seek his disbarment - POLITICOTrump Lawyer Eastman's License in Jeopardy at Disciplinary TrialConservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has written a commentary in the Wall Street Journal purporting to defend himself against allegations of ethical misconduct raised by news outlet ProPublica. Alito addressed the "charges" made by ProPublica journalists that he failed to recuse himself from cases involving entities connected to hedge fund founder Paul Singer and failed to report certain gifts on mandatory financial disclosure forms. Alito dismissed both charges as invalid. He explained that the private flight to Alaska, which took place in 2008, was provided by Singer, who allowed him to occupy an unoccupied seat. A moment's reflection reveals this to be a nonsensical statement – of course the seat was unoccupied, what is the alternative, he sat on Singer's lap for the ride? Does it only give the appearance of impropriety if someone was booted from the seat in favor of Alito? Alito stated that he stayed in a modest one-room unit at the King Salmon Lodge and considered accommodations and transportation for social events as non-reportable gifts, as commonly interpreted by justices. He further stated that he only carried on conversations with Singer a handful of times at events attended by other people as well, like dinner parties. He emphasized that the flight to Alaska was the only instance where he accepted transportation for a purely social event. Alito asserted that he had no obligation to recuse himself from cases connected to Singer and claimed he was unaware of Singer's connection in a particular case heard by the Supreme Court in 2014. The court has faced ethics controversies recently, and public confidence in the judiciary has declined according to opinion polls.US Supreme Court's Alito defends against ethics questions | ReutersJustice Samuel Alito: ProPublica Misleads Its Readers - WSJJustice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the CourtCoinbase, the prominent cryptocurrency exchange, launched a unique legal defense strategy months before it became the target of a major crackdown by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The company filed briefs as amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," in two other crypto-related lawsuits brought by the SEC, aiming to shape court rulings on key legal questions that are now central to its own case. While amicus briefs are common at the U.S. Supreme Court, they are filed in only 0.1% of cases in federal trial courts. Coinbase's strategy involved trying to influence legal precedents in its favor, even though the rulings in those cases would not be binding in its own lawsuit. The company argued that the SEC lacks authority to regulate certain digital assets as securities and criticized the SEC's misapplication of the legal test for determining securities status. Coinbase also contended that the SEC failed to provide clear guidelines, violating participants' right to due process. The SEC recently sued Coinbase, alleging that it operated an unregistered exchange and offered securities without proper registration. Coinbase's legal push reflects the industry's efforts to shape the regulatory landscape and establish favorable legal interpretations for cryptocurrencies.Coinbase waged unusual legal defense ahead of SEC's crypto crackdown | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 692, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: Tv Title Pairs 1: Best friends Eric McCormack and Debra Messing. Will and Grace. 2: 2 adolescents, both voiced by Mike Judge. Beavis and Butthead. 3: Cop Billy Gardell and teacher Melissa McCarthy. Mike and Molly. 4: Streetwise cops Paul Michael Glaser and David Soul. Starsky and Hutch. 5: Lawyers Breckin Meyer and Mark-Paul Gosselaar. Franklin and Bash. Round 2. Category: Tv Violence 1: Titus Welliver's finger being detached was featured on this show, the CW's most "super". Supernatural. 2: "Random Acts of Violence", a 2003 episode of this William Petersen show, could have been the title of several. CSI. 3: On "NYPD Blue" Detective Andy Sipowicz, played by this actor, was not above getting physical to get a confession. Dennis Franz. 4: Tara is drowned and forked to death by her mother-in-law on the Season 6 finale of this motorcycle club drama. Sons of Anarchy. 5: This P.I. show was violent for its time--1967-1975--with Mike Connors, by one count, being knocked cold 55 times. Mannix. Round 3. Category: Chief Justices Of The U.s. 1: This Chief Justice once wrote, "I don't remember that I ever was President". (William Howard) Taft. 2: In 2005 he became Chief Justice without ever being an associate justice. (John) Roberts. 3: Before becoming Chief Justice in 1953, he was the only California governor elected to 3 consecutive terms. (Earl) Warren. 4: In 1986 he replaced Warren Burger as Chief Justice. Rehnquist. 5: Portland was the middle name of this Chief Justice who sought the presidency in 1868 and 1872 while serving on the court. (Salmon P.) Chase. Round 4. Category: Fairly Recent News 1: After this leader's death in 2013, Citgo facilities across the U.S. flew their flags at half-staff. Hugo Chávez. 2: Here's the official portrait of the christening of this little fella. (Prince) George. 3: In 2014 he returned for a second stint heading the NYPD; he headed the LAPD in between. William Bratton. 4: When not saving constituents from burning buildings (literally!), this ex-Newark mayor found time to win a Senate seat. Cory Booker. 5: In offstage drama, a member of this Russian cultural institution was convicted for an acid attack on the artistic director. Bolshoi. Round 5. Category: "Toasts" 1: Sauteed egg-dipped bread. French toast. 2: Campfire confection. toasted marshmallows. 3: Original name of "The Ed Sullivan Show". Toast of the Town. 4: "Rank" of George Jessel. Toastmaster General. 5: Named for an Australian soprano, it's thin, crisp bread. Melba toast. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia! Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/

Ghosts of Elections Past, Present, and FutureWe talked to Rick Pildes (NYU Law) a few days after the Moore v. Harper oral argument, the “independent state legislature” case that instilled many worries about the Court opening a door to state legislatures overriding the popular vote. While those fears were unfounded (so to speak), this case raises other concerns that federal courts will get more intwined with elections and will block state courts from enforcing their constitutions, overturning impermissible gerrymanders, and providing remedies. In “Ghosts of Elections Past, Present, and Future,” we talk about how this case is haunted not only by the 2020 election, a fake electors scheme based on the Electors Claus(e), and an insurrection; it is also haunted by ghost-of-election-past Bush v. Gore and the ghosts-of-election-future. We also ask, “Do You Hear What I Hear?” The left embracing Rehnquist's Bush v. Gore concurrence? Jed also observes a Festivus Airing of Grievances about conservatives' originalism errors and the Democrats' litigation strategy.  There was barely enough historical evidence to sustain one hour of oral argument, but the Court made it last for what felt like eight. We also talk to Rick about election law in an era of fragmentation(North Pole-arization?)Rick is the Sudler Family Professor at NYU Law School anda co-creator of the major casebook in this field, The Law of Democracy. He has served on President Biden appointed him to the President's Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. As a lawyer, Pildes has successfully argued voting-rights and election-law cases before the United States Supreme Court, and was part of the Emmy-nominated NBC breaking-news team for coverage of the 2000 Bush v. Gore contest. We discuss his recent articles and posts here:“The Age of Political Fragmentation,” Journal of Democracy (2021).“Election Law in an Age of Distrust,” Stanford Law Review Online (2022).Election Law Blog on Moore v. Harper here and here.We also discuss: Kate Shaw, Oral Argument in Moore v. Harper and the Perils of Finding “Compromise” on the Independent State Legislature Theory (Just Security)  Jed's twitter thread on Moore v. Harper and Democratic lawyers making problematic concessions here, relating to a proposed solution against remedies from Will Baude and former judge Michael McConnell here (the Atlantic).

Audio of Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore (2000). You'll want to listen to this episode before oral arguments in Moore v. Harper to be scheduled for later this term. Today I'll be reading Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore (2000) which seems to be the origin of the highly controversial Independent Legislature Theory - the idea that state legislatures are the ultimate authority in determining the rules by which states appoint their allotted number of electors to the electoral college - a power so absolute that it cannot even be checked by state courts and officials.  If this sounds familiar, it's because it's very similar to former president Trump's efforts to appoint unauthorized slates of electors in several states that he lost, hoping to overturn the 2020 election in his favor. While those efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, it is important to note that three sitting justices embrace (and, indeed, endorse) the theory - first described in this concurring opinion from Bush v. Gore, written 22 years ago by Chief Justice William Rehnquist.   Here is a great article about the Independent Legislature Theory from The Brennan Center for Justice. I keep it bookmarked and refer to it often.   Access this SCOTUS opinion with citations and other essential case information on Oyez Music by Epidemic Sound

Reflections on the stabbing of Mr. Rushdie and free speech. *Warren court, not Rehnquist court

Friends,On June 30, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case called Moore v. Harper. With all the controversial decisions handed down by the Court this term, its decision to take up this case slid under most radar detectors. But it could be the most dangerous case on the Court's upcoming docket. You need to know about it. Here's the background: Last February, the North Carolina Supreme Court blocked the state's Republican controlled general assembly from instituting a newly drawn congressional district map, holding that the map violated the state constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering. The Republican Speaker of the North Carolina House appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, advancing what's called the “independent state legislature” theory. It's a theory that's been circulating for years in right-wing circles. It holds that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures alone the power to regulate federal elections in their states.We've already had a preview of what this theory could mean. It underpins a major legal strategy in Trump's attempted coup: the argument that state legislatures can substitute their own judgment of who should be president in place of the person chosen by a majority of voters. This was the core of the so-called “Eastman memo” that Trump relied on (and continues to rely on) in seeking to decertify Biden's election. The U.S. Constitution does grant state legislatures the authority to prescribe “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections.” But it does not give state legislatures total power over our democracy. In fact, for the last century, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the independent state legislature theory.Yet if we know anything about the conservative majority now controlling the Supreme Court, it's that they will rule on just about anything that suits the far-right's agenda. Conservatives on the Court have already paved the way for this bonkers idea. Then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist was an early proponent. In his concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore, the 2000 case that halted the recount in Florida in the presidential election, Rehnquist (in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) asserted that because the state court's recount conflicted with deadlines set by the state legislature for the election, the court's recount could not stand. The issue returned to the Supreme Court in 2020, when the justices turned down a request by Pennsylvania Republicans to fast-track their challenge to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that required state election officials to count mail-in ballots received within three days of Election Day. In an opinion that accompanied the court's order, Justice Alito (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch) suggested that the state supreme court's decision to extend the deadline for counting ballots likely violated the U.S. Constitution because it intruded on the state legislature's decision making. Make no mistake. The independent state legislature theory would make it easier for state legislatures to pull all sorts of additional election chicanery, without any oversight from state courts: ever more voter suppression laws, gerrymandered maps, and laws eliminating the power of election commissions and secretaries of state to protect elections. If the Supreme Court adopts the independent state legislature theory, it wouldn't just be throwing out a century of its own precedent. It would be rejecting the lessons that inspired the Framers to write the Constitution in the first place: that it's dangerous to give state legislatures unchecked power, as they had under the Articles of Confederation.The Republican Party and the conservative majority on the Supreme Court call themselves “originalists” who find the meaning of the Constitution in the intent of the Farmers. But they really don't give a damn what the Framers thought. They care only about imposing their own retrograde and anti-democracy ideology on the United States. But we can fight back. First, Congress must expand the Supreme Court to add balance to a branch of government that has been stolen by radicalized Republicans. This is not a far-fetched idea. The Constitution doesn't specify how many justices there should be – and we've already changed the size of the Court seven times in American history.Second, Congress must impose term limits on Supreme Court justices, and have them rotate with judges on the U.S. courts of appeals. Third, Congress must restore federal voting rights protections and expand access to the ballot box. We need national minimum standards for voting in our democracy. Obviously, these reforms can happen only if Democrats retain control of the House in the midterm elections and add at least two more Democratic senators — willing to reform or abolish the filibuster.So your vote is critical, and not just in federal elections. Make sure you also vote for state legislators who understand what's at stake to preserve our democracy. Because, as this Supreme Court shows, the future of our democracy is not guaranteed.Thanks for subscribing. Please consider a paid or gift subscription to help sustain this work. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Legal Innovators Interview Series, host Leslie Gromis Baker of Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney talks with Tom McGough, chief legal officer a UPMC. Tom was a partner at an AmLaw100 firm, where he also served as a member of the executive committee and as chairman of the litigation department. Tom received his law degree from the University of Virginia and then clerked for Judge Collins J. Seitz of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Justice William H. Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States. He returned to Pittsburgh in 1980, serving as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania before going into private practice in 1982. In 1987, Sen. Bob Dole, then minority leader of the U.S. Senate, appointed Tom as associate counsel to the Senate committee investigating the Iran-Contra affair. To learn more about Leslie Gromis Baker: https://www.bipc.com/leslie-baker To learn more about UPMC: https://www.upmc.com/?&utm_kxconfid=sws256pg0&utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=71700000037475977&utm_adgroup=58700004164275742&utm_term=upmc&utm_advertiserid=700000001754524&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkL7E2ayd9AIVxNrICh3wSAYREAAYASAAEgJa8vD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds And to learn more about Buchanan Ingersoll and Ronney, visit: https://www.bipc.com/

Avsnitt 100 av Tennismagasinets Podcast! Idag intervjuar jag...mig själv!  Vi pratar om vad jag lärt mig under 99 avsnitt av den här podden, varför jag startade den och jag berättar mer om poddens framtid. För podden kommer leva vidare, men under namnet "Linus på baslinjen"! Besök www.linuspabaslinjen.com för mer information om vad som händer framöver! Tack för 100 avsnitt kära lyssnare, nu gasar vi vidare! Det här sista avsnittet gjordes precis som tidigare i samarbete med Tennisshopen! Shopen som drivs av Gusten och Björn Rehnquist och som ligger i hjärtat av Göteborg. 15% rabatt kan in få på ett helt köp med rabattkoden "tennislinus" som gäller juni ut. Så in och fynda på www.tennisshopen.se.

Björn Rehnquist, född 1978 var som junior en av världens mest lovande spelare. Han vann juniorklassen i Australian Open och nådde final i Franska Öppna. Som seniorspelare nådde han plats 146 i världen och fick chansen att spela tre huvudklasser i Grand Slam-turneringar, bland annat ett år i Australian Open när han kvalade in och fick möta världsspelaren Andy Roddick i första omgången.  Björn har efter karriären varit coach på förbundet i Kuwait och är idag delägare i poddens partner, Tennisshopen.   I dagens avsnitt pratar vi bland annat om:   - hur Björn tränade för att bli en av världens bästa juniorer   - hur viktigt det är med vapen i seniortennisen   - ifall livet på tourerna nedanför ATP-touren är så tufft som det sägs   - hur livet i Kuwait var   - trenderna inom försäljningen av tennismaterial   Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt dagens poddgäst Björn Rehnquist! Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se.  Mail: linus.se.eriksson@gmail.com Instagram: linus_se_eriksson

Anders Larsson började sin tränarbana i Lerum som 15-åring. Direkt efter gymnasiet blev han chefstränare och blev kvar i Lerum i 25 år.  Under de här åren fostrade Lerum en mängd duktiga spelare. Ett otal SM-guld plockades hem och båda damer och herrar fick världsrankingar, bland andra Björn Rehnquist. Efter Lerum har Anders varit verksam i Särö LTK, Torslanda TK och är idag coach på GLTK.  Anders är dessutom ett stort fan av Nick Bollettieri och har besökt hans akademi tio gånger och även varit på studiebesök hos Rafa Nadals akademi vid flera tillfällen.   I det här avsnittet berättar Anders bland annat om:  - framgångsfaktorerna under åren i Lerum  - vikten av att skapa vapen hos spelarna  - hur mycket tid en tränare behöver lägga av sin fritid för att hjälpa en spelare ordentligt i dennes elitsatsning  - hållbart ledarskap och om att stå 10 timmar på banan per dag  - varför han gillar Nick Bollettieris akademi och hans spaningar därifrån Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Anders Larssons före detta adept Björn Rehqnuist! Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se. Mail: linus.se.eriksson@gmail.com Instagram: linus_se_eriksson

Peter Carlsson hade en egen spelarkarriär som nådde till strax utanför topp 100 i världen i både singel och dubbel. Som coach har han arbetat med Thomas Enqvist, hjälpt Jonas Björkman vinna Australian Open i dubbel samt Fredrik Nielsen vinna Wimbledon i dubbel. Han har varit ansvarig för Team Catella i förbundets regi när Pim-Pim Johansson och Robin Söderling ingick i det, samt jobbat privat med Söderling mellan 2004-2008. Han har utöver det här även coachat finska spelaren Henri Kontinen i tre år, som efter deras tid ihop nådde ända till förstaplatsen i världen på dubbelrankingen. Idag är Peter Carlsson coach på Good to Great.  I dagens avsnitt pratar vi bland annat om:  - hur man coachar en dubbelspelare under tävling  - arbetet med Robin Söderling   - vad som är viktigt i övergången från junior- till seniortennis  - varför det är viktigt att träna på att avgöra bollen  - fördelar med teamsatsningar  - hur bra träningsmiljö det är på Good to Great  Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se. Mail: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se Instagram: linus_se_eriksson

Mari Andersson är född 1986 och var rankad topp 50 i världen som junior och nådde 335 i världen som senior. Hon hade en fantastiskt framgångsrik collegekarriär på University of California, Berkely. Efter det var hon coach på college i två år, varit huvudtränare på Riksidrottsgymnasiet i Båstad, landslagstränare för Svenska Tennisförbundet för flickjuniorer och arbetar idag med padel på PDL samt är förbundskapten för damlandslaget i padel.   I avsnittet idag pratar vi om:  - pressen att leverera på college  - varför att avsluta sin elitkarriär var ett av hennes bästa beslut  - om padel är en konkurrent till tennis  - att man kan ha en karriär inom tennis även ifall man inte blir proffs  - upplevelser av rasism i samhället   Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se.  Mail: linus.se.eriksson@gmail.com Instagram: linus_se_eriksson

Joakim Nyström var själv en världsspelare, rankad 7 i singel och 4 i dubbel som högst, båda två högstarankingarna kom år 1986. Han vann Davis Cup två gånger och Wimbledon i dubbel en gång. Totalt blev det 13 singeltitlar på ATP-nivå. Som coach har han ett imponerande CV som bland annat innefattar tränaruppdrag åt Thomas Enqvist, Stefan Koubek, Jürgen Melzer, Jarkko Nieminen, Jack Sock, assisterande coach åt Dominic Thiem samt arbete åt tennisförbunden i Österrike, Kina och Sverige.    I avsnittet så pratar vi pratar vi bland annat om:   - vilka egenskaper som var viktigast för att att han skulle nå ATP-touren som spelare   - hur mycket dubbel Jürgen Melzer tränade   - hur viktigt Nyström tycker det är en spelares slag ser likadana ut hela tiden   - hur tufft ledarskap Dominic Thiems före detta huvudcoach Gunter Bresnik hade   - ifall samma glöd finns i dagens generation spelare som han såg hos Thiem och Melzer  Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se.  Instagram: linus_se_eriksson  Mail: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se 

Jonas Björkman är en av vårt lands bästa tennisspelare genom tiderna. Världsetta i dubbel, världsfyra i singel. Sex ATP-titlar i singel och hela 54 i dubbel! Efter karriären har Jonas coachat Marin Cilic, Andy Murray och Mirjam Börklund samt kommenterar tennis på Eurosport.  I dagens avsnitt pratar vi bland annat om: - hur Jonas ser på att han inte stack ut som extremt bra under juniortiden - att han värderar kvalitet före kvantitet - hur man får ett bra volleyspel - varför han enbart tränade singel under sina år på touren - hur noggrann Andy Murray var i allt han gjorde - hur Jonas, om han var härskare över svensk tennis, skulle göra för att nyttja våra tourcoacher mer Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se. Instagram: linus_se_eriksson Mail: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se

Idag ska vi träffa Åsa Hedin som för ungefär ett år sedan blev vald till ordförande för Svenska Tennisförbundet, som första kvinna någonsin. Åsa arbetar i övrigt som professionell styrelseordförande och ledamot, spelar tennis för Saltsjöbadens LTK och har en bakgrund där hon spelade tennis i USA under collegetiden samt testat på tränarrollen vid olika tillfällen. Hon sitter även med i ITF's Gender Equality Committee. I dagens samtal pratar vi bland annat om: - vad rollen som ordförande för SvTF innebär - ifall hon upplever att det är ett öppet sinne och framåtsträvande anda hos SvTF - vad man sett i de omvärldsbevakningar som gjorts under arbetet med Game Changer 2030 - varför Åsa tycker tränarutbildning är ett av våra absolut viktigaste områden att jobba med framöver Och så sätts jag på prov när Åsa kapar podden och börjar ställa frågor till mig om vad jag har upplevt framkommit under alla tidigare poddavsnitt jag spelat in... Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se. Mail: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se Instagram: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se

Niklas Jihde, född 1976, drömde som ung smålandsbo om att bli tennisproffs. 17 år gammal fann han istället innebandyklubban och blev så småningom världens bästa innebandyspelare. Han vann bland annat fem VM-guld och var proffs i Schweiz (där han samtidigt extraknäckte som tennistränare). Efter karriären har Niklas gjort karriär som idrottsjournalist och är idag programledare på tv, poddare samt ledare för sonens innebandylag.  I dagens avsnitt pratar vi bland annat om: - hur man tar sitt ansvar till att vara en bra lagspelare - om det i dagens samhälle går att bli proffs på sin idrott om man börjar först vid 17 års ålder - hur Niklas tycker tennisen borde göra för att ta tillvara på all kunskap som finns - vilken nytta han hade av sin bakgrund som tennisspelare när han bytte till innebandy Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se. E-mail: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se Instagram: linus_se_eriksson

Daniel Berta blev 2009 mästare i Franska Öppna mästerskapen för juniorer och slutade året som bäst i världen, ett år ung. Året därpå, när tanken var att han skulle slå sig in ordentligt på seniortouren, tvingades han bryta med sin långvariga coach och skadebekymmer kröp sig på. Han blev som bäst rankad 637 i världen bland seniorerna. Idag är Daniel tränare i Uppsala Studenternas Idrottsförening. Han har parallellt med jobbet gått lärarprogrammet samt har två egna barn han är tennistränare för. I slutet av 2019 var han under några månader coach för Mikael Ymer.   I dagens avsnitt reflekterar Daniel om:  - hur han tränade för att bli bäst i världen  - varför han anser att hans tennissatsning tog slut året han slutade världsetta  - hur viktigt det är för en coach att bygga en stark relation med sin spelare  - hur mycket tid han la på att kartlägga Mikael Ymers motståndare och vad han kollade på  - hur han gör för att förmedla vad som krävs för att nå världstoppen till sina spelare  Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se.  E-mail: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se  Instagram: linus_se_eriksson

Jesper Skaneby har en bakgrund som elitaktiv i Taekwando och vunnit bronsmedalj i EM samt är flerfaldig nordisk och svensk mästare. Efter sin egna karriär var han landslagstränare för Sverige och Danmark.  Efter detta har han utbildat sig via GIH i idrottsvetenskap och haft föreningsuppdrag som fystränare i ett antal Stockholmsbaserade tennisklubbar samt för Täby i innebandy och Judo IK samt Djurgården i fotboll. Idag studerar han idrott och hälsa via Uppsala Universitet och är gymnastiktränare hos Brommagymnasterna.  I dagens intressanta avsnitt pratar vi om:  - varför det som tränare många gånger innebär att ta på sig rollen som den dåliga par-psykologen  - Jespers syn på fysträning i tennisföreningar och hur prioriterad den är  - varför det inte är relevant med tester för ungdomar och juniorer  - vilka de osynliga kvaliteterna är som vi behöver men pratar för lite om  - hur viktigt det är att utbilda eleverna samtidigt som man tränar  Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se.  E-mail: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se  Instagram: linus_se_eriksson

I dagens avsnitt träffar vi Ulf Ekstam som är ansvarig för fysträningen på Good to Great Tennis Academy. Ulf är bland annat utbildad osteopat och PT. Han har en bakgrund som badmintonspelare och som fyscoach inom MMA och ishockey för bland annat Södertälje SK i Hockeyallsvenskan.   I dagens avsnitt pratar vi bland annat om:  - varför fysträningen kommer lite mer naturligt inom ishockeyn än inom tennisen  - Ulfs tankar kring uthållighetsträning, styrketräning och snabbhetsträning för tennisspelare  - varför tränare bör ta hänsyn till menstruationscykeln i arbete med kvinnliga idrottare  - varför anläggningsfrågan är en nyckel om svenska tennisspelare ska bli starkare fysiskt  Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se. E-mail: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se  Instagram: linus_se_eriksson

Idag träffar vi Henrik Wallensten, en av Sveriges främsta experter vad gäller tennismaterial. Skor, skosulor, senor, racketar, grepp, strängning - allt som gäller tennismaterial kan Henrik det mesta om. Henrik själv spelar tennis på ITF's seniortour och representerar Tabergsdalens TK i det svenska seriesystemet. I dagens avsnitt pratar vi bland annat om: - vad man bör använda för sulor på skorna beroende på vilken typ av grusbana man spelar på - varför svingvikten på racketen är det väsentliga - om proffsen använder de modellerna de utger sig för att spela med - om man får vad man betalar för vad gäller tennissenor - vilket racketmärke som leder utvecklingen för tillfället - varför ”+1” är det senaste Henrik ändrat uppfattning om - och ja, givetvis kommer vi även in på Henriks hemmagjorda pizzaugnar. Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se. Instagram: linus_se_eriksson & henrik.wallensten E-mail: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se

Idag ska ni få höra Niclas Rodhborn berätta om sin smått osannolika livsresa. Niclas var en lovande ishockeyspelare som var med om två hemska händelser vid 19 års ålder som kom att förändra hans liv, varav den ena innebar att han blev förlamad i benen. Sedan dess har han bland annat varit med i Paralympics i två olika sporter, varit världselva i båda singel och dubbel i rullstolstennis, varit förbundskapten för rullstolslandslagen i Sverige, deltagit i tv-programmen "Mot alla odds" och "Vinnarskallar", föreläser och kommenterar tennis på Eurosport.  I dagens avsnitt pratar vi om: - hur det är att kommentera tennis nattetid på Eurosport - vad som fick Niclas att ta beslutet att ge livet en chans - rullstolstennisens status i Sverige - hur det var, och är, att satsa på en internationell elitkarriär inom rullstolstennis - hur fantastiskt livet är Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se. Instagram: linus_se_eriksson & niclasrodhborn Mail: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se 

Anders Bengtsson är en av två chefredaktörer samt ansvarig utgivare för Fotbollsmagasinet Offside.  Även om fotbollen är största intresset har han en bakgrund som tennisspelare och även tennistränare. Anders har det senaste året arbetat med en reportageserie om barn- och ungdomsfotbollen i landet och har grottat ner sig ordentligt i ämnen som berör detta, som bland annat nivåindelning och selektering. I dagens avsnitt pratar vi bland annat om: - hur viktigt det är att tycka det är kul med det man vill bli bra på - selektering - nivåindelning - ideella fotbollstränare och för- och nackdelar som det medför - Brommapojkarnas framgångsrika ungdomsverksamhet - reflektioner kring elit- och breddklubbar i Sverige Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se. Mail: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se Instagram: linus_se_eriksson 

Peter Hjort spelade själv tennis på en hög nivå. Han tävlade internationellt, spelade collegetennis och testade på proffstennisen innan han vid vid 20 års ålder valde att satsa på att bli tränare. Som tränare har han jobbat i flera olika roller och miljöer, bland annat i Tyskland, Norge, USA och har jobbat på touren med bland andra Hanna Nooni och Sofia Arvidsson, men även med utländska spelare. Han har dessutom varit juniorlandslagskapten för 14-åringarna i Sverige. Idag är han klubbchef i Djursholms TK efter att ha gjort en fantastisk resa under 12 års tid i Lidingö TK där han gick från att vara chefstränare till sportchef och slutligen klubbchef.   I dagens avsnitt pratar vi om:  - sport management-utbildningen Peter har i ryggsäcken  - hur viktigt det är med en öppen dialog att att förstå sig på sin spelare om du jobbar med damtennis  - att se ut som en vinnare både på och utanför banan - hur han gjorde Lidingö till en storklubb  - den viktiga röda tråden som aldrig finns i verksamheter  - hur man får all personal att jobba åt samma håll i en klubb.  Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se.  Instagram: linus_se_eriksson  Mail: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se 

Christer Sjöö är generalsekreterare på Svenska Tennisförbundet sedan 4.5 år tillbaka. Före det var han verksamhetschef på Svensk Tennis Syd. I dagens något annorlunda avsnitt fokuserar vi inte på personen Christer Sjöö utan mer på hans roll på Svenska Tennisförbundet och höra honom reflektera och förklara några av de frågeställningar som den här poddens samtalsledare har, har haft och uppfattat att andra tennispersoner i Sverige funderar kring. Dessutom pratar vi mycket om vart svensk tennis är på väg de närmsta åren i och med färdriktningen mot 2030.  I dagens avsnitt pratar vi bland annat om:  - om Christer känner att han har svensk tennis stöd och support som ledare - var vi kan förvänta oss att svensk tennis befinner sig 2030 - varför man valt att välja ut tolv olika områden att arbeta med på en och samma gång i Game Change 2030 - återväxten av tennistränare i Sverige - International Tennis Rating, Universal Tennis Rating och svensk tennis rating - vad spelare i åldrarna 12, 15 och 18 kan förvänta sig för stöd av SvTF i sina satsningar Avsnittet görs i samarbete med vår nya sponsor Tennisshopen.se som drivs av före detta topp 10-spelaren Magnus ”Gusten” Gustafsson samt Björn Rehnquist, vinnare av Australian Open för juniorer. Ta tillfället i akt och få 15 % på ett helt köp när du anger ”tennislinus” i webbshopskassan hos www.tennisshopen.se. E-mail: linus.eriksson@tennismagasinet.se Instagram: linus_se_eriksson

This is an audio-enhanced version of Jazz Cabbage Cafe's famous clip. In this special Jazz Cabbage Cafe interview with the legendary John Sinclair, hosts Rick Thompson and Jamie Lowell prod the hero to explain how his case with the White Panthers helped to bring down Tricky Dick, Richard Nixon. When discovered on a Saturday, the Watergate burglars were removing wiretap devices they had previously installed. Why? Because on Friday, Rehnquist advised the White House that those taps were to be made illegal on Monday by action of the Supreme Court. Why? Because the government had used wiretaps on the White Panthers and the defense successfully argued they were not Constitutional. Why? To trap John Sinclair and jail him for sedition and anti-government activities. Sinclair was ALREADY in jail, given a ten-year sentence for selling two loose joints to an undercover officer. You may remember that story from the John Lennon song, "John Sinclair": "It ain't fair, John SinclairGave him ten for breathing air..."Lennon, Stevie Wonder, Bob Seger and many other music artists of the day performed a special concert at Crisler Arena to draw attention to Sinclair's case; the Michigan Supreme Court released him, and 200 others, when they determined all cannabis laws in Michigan were unconstitutional. This clip joins the regular broadcast in progress. With Debra Young, Colin MacDougall, Berg Berg and Mike Brennan. From October 6, 2020.

“Roe v. Wade has no foundation in either law or logic; it is on a collision course with itself.”  Edward Lazarus, a former law clerk to Roe's author, Justice Harry Blackmun, who writes: As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather. . . . . What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. ... The proof of Roe's failings comes not from the writings of those unsympathetic to women's rights, but from the decision itself and the friends who have tried to sustain it. Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.7 Ten Legal Reasons to Condemn Roe v. Wade 1.    The umpires are there to call balls and strikes. In real baseball they cannot be players as well.   The Roe Court far exceeded its constitutionally designated legal purpose and authority.  Under the U.S. Constitution, the power to make laws is vested in Congress and retained by state legislatures. Elected representatives are the proper ‘makers of law.’ These elected officials then answer to the voters. The role of the judiciary in constitutional review is to determine if the law being challenged infringes on a constitutionally protected right. It is not the role to then somehow come up with new laws of their own tastes and inclination. Justice O'Connor, quoting Chief Justice Warren Burger: Irrespective of what we may believe is wise or prudent policy in this difficult area, "the Constitution does not constitute us as 'Platonic Guardians' nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, 'wisdom,' or 'common sense.'"8 In Roe v. Wade and its companion, conjoined case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court struck down criminal laws of Texas and Georgia which outlawed certain abortions by finding that these laws (and those of the other 48 states) violated a "right of privacy" that "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." But such a right is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution nor even derivable from values embodied in it. It was a preference to have such a right and Justice Blackmun’s writings actually set themselves to devise the ‘rules’ that would then ‘emanate’ from such a preferred right. He simply made up new, substitutionary laws and imposed them on all the states!  In his dissenting opinion in Doe v. Bolton, Justice Byron White, joined by Justice William Rehnquist, wrote: I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers ... and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 states are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court. 2. The Roe Decision seriously misrepresents the history of medicine and society’s view of abortion. Justice Blackmun admitted to a serious fascination with the medical profession. Later in Doe v. Bolton we will see an almost passionate commitment to ‘protect the physician from the cloud of possible prosecution.’ The Mayo Clinic, for whom he served as legal counsel, admits to Blackmun’s unique obsession with the medical profession.  Proceedings of the Mayo Clinic Francis Helminski, J.D. Volume 69, Issue 7, p 698-699, July 01, 1994 Although three previous justices of the United States Supreme Court have had formal medical training, none has had more influence on medicine than Justice Harry A. Blackmun. Blackmun, a mathematics major at Harvard College, considered medical school but instead chose legal training. After becoming familiar with the legal work of the Mayo Clinic while practicing with a Minneapolis firm, he was internal legal counsel for the clinic from 1950 to 1959. Blackmun's work contributed to the development of the clinic, especially in the establishment of Rochester Methodist Hospital. As a Supreme Court Justice, Blackmun's concern for medicine was evident in many of his judicial opinions, including Roe v Wade and Regents of the University of California v Bakke. In Roe, he rested much of the constitutional foundation for legalized access to abortion on the integrity of the physician-patient relationship. The apparent purpose of the Roe opinion's long historical excursion is to create the impression that abortion had been widely practiced and unpunished until the appearance of restrictive laws in the prudishly-Victorian 19th Century. One example is adequate to show the distortion of Justice Harry Blackmun's version of history. He must overcome a huge hurdle in the person of Hippocrates, the "Father of Medicine," and his famous Oath which has guided medical ethics for over 2,000 years. The Oath provides in part: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion."9 This enduring standard was followed until the Roe era and is reflected in Declarations of the World Medical Association through 1968: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception. ..."10 But Justice Blackmun dismisses this universal, unbroken ethical tradition as nothing more than the manifesto of a fringe Greek sect, the Pythagoreans, to which Hippocrates is alleged to have belonged! 3. Roe wrongly characterizes the common law of England regarding the status of abortion. The Court's language in Roe offers a plastic analysis and conclusion – "it now appears doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus" – is patently false on its face. The Common Law drew its principles from Natural Law. Until quickening there were no objective signs that a human life was present. Quickening, the moment that movement can be detected, was considered objective scientific fact that the fetus was indeed definitively alive.11 William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), an exhaustive and definitive discussion of English common law as it was adopted by the United States shows that the lives of unborn children were valued and protected, even if their beginning point was still thought to be "quickening" rather than conception: Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as the infant is able to stir in the mother's womb.    For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb ... this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.12 Until well into the 19th century, it was assumed that a child's life may not begin – and certainly could not be proven to have begun to satisfy criminal evidentiary standards – prior to the time the child’s movements were felt by the mother ("quickening"), at approximately 16-18 weeks' gestation. The science of the time was being applied to the enforcement of the law. After the invention of the modern microscope (1836) and the widespread, objective scientific revelation that mammalian life begins at conception, English law then increased the penalties for killing a child before quickening. Consistent with the principle that the law needs to follow objective, observable facts, in 1861 Parliament passed the Offences Against the Person Act. This law extended protection of the life of the child throughout pregnancy. This law was gradually whittled-away starting in the 1980’s. But the Act continued to protect pre-born life in Northern Ireland until 2019.20 The Roe Court looks at the distinction in early common law concerning abortions attempted before or after "quickening," wrongly. It falsely assumes that the law allowed women great latitude to abort their children in the early months of pregnancy. This is like saying people had an unspecified right to hack websites before such acts were criminally prosecuted. The law is designed to enforce known and demonstrable crimes. A law could not protect a human being it did not know to be alive. But as demonstrated by the Offences Against the Person Act, when the facts are known, then the law can be enforced. 4. In Roe, the Court downplays and distorts the purpose and legal weight of state criminal abortion statutes that had been deliberated and passed by the several states In the 19th Century, in virtually every state and territory, laws were enacted to define abortion as a crime throughout pregnancy. They contained only narrow exceptions, generally permitting abortion only if necessary to preserve the mother's life. The primary reason for stricter abortion laws, according to their legislative history, was to afford greater protection to unborn children. This reflected a heightened appreciation of prenatal life based on new medical knowledge. (See the Offenses Against the Person Act in the U.K.) Dr. Horatio R. Storer… etc is significant that the medical profession spearheaded efforts to afford greater protection to unborn lives than had been recognized under the common law's archaic "quickening" distinction. The existence of such laws, and their clear purpose of protecting the unborn, rebuts the Court's claim that abortion has always been considered a liberty enjoyed by women. These laws show broad acceptance of the view that the life of an unborn child is valuable and should be protected unless the mother's life is at risk. In that case, of course, both mother and child were likely to perish, given the primitive care then available for infants born prematurely. How does the Court get around the impressive body of laws giving clear effect to the state's interest in protecting unborn lives? It attempts to devalue them by ascribing a completely different purpose: the desire to protect the mother's life and health from a risky surgical procedure. Applying the maxim "if the reason for a law has ceased to exist, the law no longer serves any purpose," the Court declares that abortion is now "safer than childbirth." Therefore, laws banning abortion have outlived their purpose.   5. A privacy right to decide to have an abortion has no foundation in the text or history of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade locates a pregnant woman's "constitutional" right of privacy to decide whether or not to abort her child either "in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty ..., as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people." The Court does not even make a pretense of examining the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment, to determine if it was meant to protect a privacy interest in abortion. Clearly it was not. The Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to create any new rights, but to secure to all persons, notably including freed slaves and their descendants, the rights and liberties already guaranteed by the Constitution. Several rhetorical devices are used to mask this absence of constitutional grounding. The Court mentions several specifically enumerated rights which concern an aspect of privacy, for example, the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." However, the Court fails to connect these to the newly found "right" to abortion, because no logical connection exists. Justice Blackmun attempts to graft abortion onto the line of decisions recognizing privacy/liberty rights in the following spheres: marriage (Loving v. Virginia, striking down a ban on interracial marriage); childrearing (Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, upholding parental decision-making regarding their children's education); procreation (Skinner v. Oklahoma, finding unconstitutional a state law mandating sterilization of inmates found guilty of certain crimes); and contraceptive use by a married couple (Griswold v. Connecticut). Certainly marriage, and building and raising a family are fundamental aspects of human life that predate human laws and nations. They are implicit in the concept of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, though even these rights are subject to state limitation, such as laws against bigamy, incest, and child abuse and neglect. But abortion does not fit neatly among these spheres of privacy. It negates them. Abortion is not akin to childrearing; it is child destruction. A pregnant woman's right to abort nullifies the right to procreate upheld in "Skinner." He no longer has a right to bring children into the world, but only a right to fertilize an ovum, which his mate can then destroy without his knowledge or consent. The fear of government intruding into the marital bedroom by searching for evidence of contraceptive use drove the Griswold Court to find a privacy right for couples to use contraception in the "penumbras, formed by emanations from" various guarantees in the Bill of Rights. But, however closely abortion and contraception may be linked in purpose and effect, they are worlds apart in terms of privacy. Abortions do not take place in the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms, preventing them does not require investigation of private sexual behavior, and they involve personnel other than the spouses. A "privacy right" large enough to encompass abortion could also be applied to virtually any conduct performed outside the public view, including child abuse, possession of pornography or using illicit drugs. The liberty interest to be protected from state regulation is never really defined in Roe. Instead the Court describes at some length the hardships some women face, not from pregnancy, but from raising children: Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by childcare. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. By this reasoning, one might argue that Roe's liberty encompasses ridding oneself of unwanted toddlers! Ordinarily, the defense of rights requires us to forgo lethal methods and use means likely to create the least harm to others. We may not, for example, surround our house and yard with a high voltage fence to deter trespassers. This principle is upended in the abortion context. Adoption, for example, would effectively eliminate all the "hardships" of raising "unwanted" children by non-lethal means. 6. Although it reads the 14th Amendment extremely expansively to include a right of privacy to decide whether to abort a child, the Court in Roe adopts a very narrow construction of the meaning of "persons" to exclude unborn children. Much is made of the fact that "person" as used elsewhere in the Constitution does not refer to unborn children when, for example, discussing qualifications for public office or census-taking. That point proves nothing. The Supreme Court has held that corporations are "persons" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and they are not counted in the census, nor can a corporation grow up to be president. The Roe Court also ignored the clear and uncontested biological evidence before them that individual human lives begin at conception: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." This is question determined by science, not philosophers or theologians or politicians. But while seeming to sidestep the question, the Court in fact resolved the question at birth, by allowing abortion to be legal throughout pregnancy. In the same vein, the Court refers to the unborn child as only a "potential life" (indeed, an actual life) from the moment of his or her conception. The Roe opinion states that a contrary finding on "personhood" would produce the opposite result (presumably foreclosing the mother's privacy right to an abortion). One does not have to be a "person" in the full constitutional sense, however, for a state to validly protect one's life. Dogs can be protected from killing although they are not "persons."13 And under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), people are prosecuted, fined and jailed for acts that may harm creatures, such as sea turtles, that are not "persons" in the full constitutional sense. Sea turtles are protected not only after they are hatched, but even while in the egg. In fact, each sea turtle egg removed from its nest constitutes a separate violation under the ESA, regardless of whether the sea turtle egg contained an embryo that was alive or "quick" or "viable" or even already deceased at the time of the taking.   7. The Roe Court assumed the role of a legislature in establishing the trimester framework. Roe holds that in the first trimester of pregnancy, the mother's "privacy interest" in an abortion trumps state regulation. From the end of the first trimester to the child's "viability" – which the Court presumed to be no earlier than 26 weeks – the state can regulate abortion practice only in ways reasonably related to advancing the mother's health. In the final trimester, the state – in the interest of protecting the "potential life" of the child – can regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary to preserve the mother's "life or health." Health (see point 8 below) is the exception that swallows the rule. Pre-decision memoranda among members of the Roe Court acknowledged the serious flaw in establishing arbitrary, rigid time frames. Justice Blackmun himself admitted it was arbitrary.14 A reply memorandum from Justice Potter Stewart stated: One of my concerns with your opinion as presently written is ... in its fixing of the end of the first trimester as the critical point for valid state action. ... I wonder about the desirability of the dicta being quite so inflexibly "legislative." My present inclination would be to allow the States more latitude to make policy judgments. ..."15 Geoffrey R. Stone, a law clerk to Justice Brennan when Roe was decided, was recently quoted as saying: "Everyone in the Supreme Court, all the justices, all the law clerks knew it was 'legislative' or 'arbitrary.'"16 Justices O'Connor, White and Rehnquist denounced the arbitrary trimester framework in O'Connor's dissenting opinion in Akron: [There] is no justification in law or logic for the trimester framework adopted in Roe and employed by the Court today. ... [That] framework is clearly an unworkable means of balancing the fundamental right and the compelling state interests that are indisputably implicated. The majority opinion of Justice Rehnquist in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services states: The key elements of the Roe framework – trimesters and viability – are not found in the text of the Constitution or in any place else one would expect to find a constitutional principle. ... the result has been a web of legal rules that have become increasingly intricate, resembling a code of regulations rather than a body of constitutional doctrine. As Justice White has put it, the trimester framework has left this Court to serve as the country's "ex officio medical board with powers to approve or disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States."   8. What Roe gives, Doe takes away. Many Americans believe that abortion is legal only in the first trimester (or first and second trimester). Many pollsters and media outlets continue to characterize Roe v. Wade as the case which "legalized abortions in the first three months after conception."17 In a recent television appearance, NOW's former president Patricia Ireland falsely claimed that "thirty-six states outlaw abortion in the third trimester." As noted above, under Roe state laws banning late-term abortions must contain a "health" exception. Health is defined in Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, as including "all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." This definition negates the state's interest in protecting the child, and results in abortion on request throughout all nine months of pregnancy. The fact that the Court buries its improbably broad definition of health in the largely unread opinion in Doe v. Bolton makes it no less devastating.   9. The Court describes the right to abortion as "fundamental." The Supreme Court has found certain rights fundamental. Expressed or implied in the Constitution, they are considered "deeply rooted in the history and traditions" of the American people or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," such as the free exercise of religion, the right to marry, the right to a fair trial and equal protection. A state law infringing on a fundamental right is reviewed under a rigorous "strict scrutiny" standard. In effect, there is a presumption against constitutionality. The Roe Court claims abortion is fundamental on the ground that it is lurking in the penumbras and emanations of the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment, along with privacy rights like contraceptive use. It's ludicrous to claim abortion is deeply rooted in American history or traditions or that our governmental system of "ordered liberty" implicitly demands the rights to destroy one's child, but it was an effective way to foreclose state regulations of abortion. The strict scrutiny test was later abandoned in Casey.   10. Despite the rigid specificity of the trimester framework, the opinion gives little guidance to states concerning the permissible scope of abortion regulation Abortion decisions that followed Roe chronologically have not followed Roe jurisprudentially. Many decisions have five separate opinions filed, often with no more than three justices concurring on most points. Eight separate opinions were filed in Stenberg v. Carhart (which effectively nullified laws in over two dozen states banning partial-birth abortion). The 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey could have resulted in Roe's reversal. The Casey Joint Opinion (there being no majority opinion) comes close to conceding that Roe was wrongly decided: We do not need to say whether each of us, had we been Members of the Court when the valuation of the state interest came before it as an original matter, would have concluded, as the Roe Court did, that its weight is insufficient to justify a ban on abortions prior to viability even when it is subject to certain exceptions. The matter is not before us in the first instance, and, coming as it does after nearly 20 years of litigation in Roe's wake we are satisfied that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe's resolution of the issue, but the precedential force that must be accorded to its holding. Instead they jettisoned Roe's trimester framework and standard of legislative review, but kept Roe alive: Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Casey, in which he is joined in part by Justices White, Scalia and Thomas states: Roe decided that a woman had a fundamental right to an abortion. The joint opinion rejects that view. Roe decided that abortion regulations were to be subjected to "strict scrutiny," and could be justified only in the light of "compelling state interests." The joint opinion rejects that view. ... Roe analyzed abortion regulation under a rigid trimester framework, a framework that has guided this Court's decision-making for 19 years. The joint opinion rejects that framework. ... Whatever the "central holding" of Roe that is left after the joint opinion finishe[d] ... Roe continues to exist, but only in the way a storefront on a western movie set exists: a mere facade to give the illusion of reality. And later in that dissent: Roe v. Wade stands as a sort of judicial Potemkin village, which may be pointed out to passers-by as a monument to the importance of adhering to precedent. But behind the façade, an entirely new method of analysis, without any roots in constitutional law, is imported to decide the constitutionality of state laws regulating abortion. Neither stare decisis nor "legitimacy" are truly served by such an effort. Roe makes no legal sense whatsoever. It is Doe v. Bolton, handed down the same day, and 'interlocked' by Justice Blackmun, it is Doe that explicitly authorizes medical killing, "without the shadow of possible prosecution."

Are you ready for the debates and upcoming election? In the meantime, Toby Mathis and Jeff Webb of Anderson Advisors answer your tax questions about Donald Trump’s and Joe Biden’s tax returns. Maybe you, too, can become a multimillionaire. William H. Rehnquist once stated, “There is nothing wrong with a strategy to avoid the payment of taxes. The Internal Revenue Code doesn’t prevent that.” Do you have a tax question? Submit it to taxtuesday@andersonadvisors. Highlights/Topics: Can you withdraw some earnings from a Roth IRA, if you held it for five years or more and you are not older than 59.5 years old? Yes, you can take out earnings without being penalized or forced with required distributions If I live in one state and use my home office for a tax deduction, but have rented an apartment in another state for business purposes, can I use the apartment and utilities for a business deduction? Apartment in other state probably needs to be rented by entity or business; don’t do a home office, but an administrative office in your home What are the laws for purchasing a vehicle for business to use as a deduction? If business buys vehicle, track mileage and don’t fall below 50%; if you buy it, track miles and get reimbursement (55 to 58 cents per mile) Is there a way to get around being taxed from the gains/profit from doing flips? Find other expenses to run against that income If you rent out a condo and take depreciation on it, and then the following year, decide to live in the condo yourself, what do you do about the depreciation? Depreciation stays where it’s at until you decide to sell the property For all questions/answers discussed, sign up to be a Platinum member to view the replay! Go to iTunes to leave a review of the Tax Tuesday podcast. Resources: Infinity Investing Workshop http://aba.link/iiw Tax-Wise by Toby Mathis https://andersonadvisors.com/tax-wise/ Donald Trump’s Taxes (New York Times) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html Mar-a-Lago https://www.maralagoclub.com/ William H. Rehnquist https://www.oyez.org/justices/william_h_rehnquist 26 U.S. Code Section 7213 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7213A 26 U.S. Code Section 469(c)(7) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/469 26 U.S. Code Section 480A https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/26 26 U.S. Code Section 280A https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/280A 26 U.S. Code Section 121 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-14-02.pdf Wills and Trusts https://andersonadvisors.com/living_trusts/ Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs) https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/individual-retirement-arrangements-iras Traditional and Roth IRAs https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/traditional-and-roth-iras Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) https://www.irs.gov/tax-reform Capital Gains Exclusion/Section 121 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc701 Bonus Depreciation https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/new-rules-and-limitations-for-depreciation-and-expensing-under-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act Depreciation Recapture https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/depreciationrecapture.asp MileIQ https://www.mileiq.com/ Real Estate Professional Requirements https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/33-Real%20Estate%20Professionals.pdf Credits and Deductions https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions-for-individuals Charitable Organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations CARES Act https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/guide-to-the-cares-act Healthcare Reform (Affordable Care Act) https://www.healthcare.gov/ Schedule A https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-schedule-a-form-1040 Schedule E https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-schedule-e-form-1040 Schedule K-1/Form 1065 https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-schedule-k-1-form-1065 Self-Employment Tax https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc554 Form W-2 https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-w-2 1031 Exchange https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/fs-08-18.pdf Toby Mathis http://tobymathis.com/about-toby-mathis/ Anderson Advisors https://andersonadvisors.com/ Anderson Advisors Events https://andersonadvisors.com/all-events/ Events@andersonadvisors.com Anderson Advisors Tax and Asset Protection Event https://andersonadvisors.com/asset-protection/ Anderson Advisors on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX5nh607M8hSBLiMB9MgbIQ Anderson Advisors on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/AndersonBusinessAdvisors/ Anderson Advisors Podcast https://andersonadvisors.com/podcast/

Facts of the case In 1994, a Mississippi Chancery Court terminated M.L.B.'s parental rights to her two minor children. M.L.B. filed a timely appeal from the termination decree, but Mississippi law conditioned her right to appeal on prepayment of record preparation fees estimated at $2,352.36. Because she lacked the funds, M.L.B. sought leave to appeal in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court of Mississippi denied her application on the ground that, under its precedent, there is no right to proceed in forma pauperis in civil appeals. In front of the U.S. Supreme Court, M.L.B. argued that a State may not, consistent with the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, condition appeals from trial court decrees terminating parental rights on the affected parent's ability to pay record preparation fees. No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that, just as a State may not block an indigent petty offender's access to an appeal afforded others, so Mississippi may not deny M.L.B., because of her poverty, appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence on which the trial court found her unfit to remain a parent. "We place decrees forever terminating parental rights in the category of cases in which the State may not 'bolt the door to equal justice,'" wrote Justice Ginsburg, "recognizing that parental termination decrees are among the most severe forms of state action." Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented.

In this episode, GianCarlo and Amy discuss the dueling opinions in the case denying emergency relief to churches challenging California's Covid-19 restrictions. They also breakdown the five opinions the Court issued this week, which cover ERISA standing, foreign arbitral awards, the Puerto Rico Oversight Board, successive habeas petitions, and appellate review in the context of the Convention Against Torture. What a week! Amy also interviews former C.J. Rehnquist clerk and superstar securities lawyer, Matthew Martens, and tries to stump him with Rehnquist related trivia. Is she successful? Tune in to find out!Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @ scotus101 and send comments, questions, or ideas for futureepisodes to scotus101@heritage.org. Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating!Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug:https://shop.heritage.org/products/scotus-101-mug. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The famous Legal Face-Off SCOTUS panel returns for a look back at important 2019 decisions and a 2020 preview featuring former Rehnquist clerk and Solicitor General Gregory Garre, former Rehnquist clerk Andrew DeVooght and former Kennedy clerk Travis Lenkner. Insurance Information Institute Senior Research Specialist Lucian McMahon joins Rich and Tina to discuss the rise of e-scooter injuries. In the Legal Grab Bag, Tina and Rich cover breaking legal news involving the cruise ship lawsuit , the equal pay movement, Jay-Z, Britney Spears and a feline impersonation from one of the Making a Murderer lawyers.

Today's episode takes a deep dive into executive privilege, evaluating the legal arguments being raised by the Trump administration asserting executive privilege over former communications director Hope Hicks and former counsel Don McGahn. Find out how good those arguments are -- spoiler: some aren't terrible! -- and what's next for the Congressional Democrats. First, though, we begin with coverage of the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n decision from last week; that's the Bladensburg Cross case that we've discussed at some length on this show. How bad is this decision? (Bad.) Then, it's time for the intersection of Rapid Response Friday and Deep Dive Tuesday in which we time travel all the way back to 1971 to evaluate the Trump Administration's claims regarding executive privilege "over the last five decades." As you've come to expect from OA, we tell you what the administration got right... and, of course, what they got wrong. If you want to know if and when Congress will ever get meaningful testimony out of Hope Hicks or Don McGahn, you need to listen to this show. Then, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #131 about the propriety of a specific question during cross-examination of a witness who testified as to the defendant's "reputation for honesty." If you love the Federal Rules of Evidence -- and really, who doesn't? -- you'll love this segment. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the Bladensburg Cross case in Episode 256 with Sarah Henry of the AHA, and then got first-hand testimony about the oral argument in Episode 274 with Monica Miller. Click here to read the full Supreme Court opinion in American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n. If you missed our coverage of Masterpiece Cakeshop, check out Episode 180. We first broke down the importance of Hope Hicks to the Congressional investigations in Episode 259; and you can click here to read the letter and subpoena she received from Rep. Nadler. NPR confirmed that Hicks's testimony was carefully managed by White House lawyers (and was therefore worthless). Click here to read Rehnquist's 1971 memorandum on executive privilege, and click here to read how President Clinton's OLC cited that memo 25 years later. Finally, this is Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F.Supp.2d 53 (2008), the district court opinion Andrew breaks down on the show. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Judge Joe Morris was formerly Vice President and General Counsel of Shell Oil Company, General Counsel of Amerada Petroleum Corporation and Dean of the College of Law at the University of Tulsa where he taught arbitration law for more than twenty years as an Adjunct Professor of Law. He is a former United States District Court Chief Judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.Joe Morris has been with GableGotwals law firm in Tulsa for over thirty years. The last twenty years, he spent the majority of his time as an arbitrator in significant commercial arbitrations, both domestic and international. He is also a former regent of the State of Oklahoma’s higher education system.Reared on the family farm, he rode his horse to the same country school his father attended, graduated from high school in Nickerson, Kansas, a junior college in Hutchinson, Kansas, Washburn University with a Bachelor of Administration, and a doctorate of Juris Prudence and a master of laws from Michigan University.His career was launched at Michigan when he met a fellow graduate student who had worked for Shell Oil in Tulsa.His signature look came about as the result of a challenge by two law school classmates that he didn’t have the guts to wear a cowboy hat on a trip to London. He has worn a Stetson hat ever since.

A Conversation About War, Diplomacy and Presidential Decision-Making Brett McGurk has just joined Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute. He resigned from his special envoy post this past December when President Trump announced a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria without any process or deliberation. McGurk had served as President Trump's envoy to defeat ISIS for the past two years, helping to oversee a global campaign with a coalition of 75 countries and 4 international organizations. He was appointed to the post by President Barack Obama in 2015 and was retained in this role by the Trump administration. McGurk has had nearly two decades of diplomatic service, particularly in the Middle East, across Democratic and Republican administrations. He was presented the Distinguished Honor Award by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Distinguished Service Award by Secretary of State John Kerry for exceptional service overseas. From October 2014 to January 2016, McGurk led 14 months of secret negotiations with Iran that led to a prisoner swap and the return home of six Americans, including journalist Jason Rezaian. Before joining the Bush administration's national security team, McGurk served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and was at the Supreme Court during the September 11, 2001 attacks, an experience that led to his practice of foreign affairs at the highest levels in Washington, D.C. and on the front lines. Come for a rare visit about his experiences as a seasoned diplomat as well as his thoughts on the direction of U.S. foreign policy and the intertwining of policy and politics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rehnquist proposed. O'Connor said no.

It's done. Brett Kavanaugh is a Supreme Court Justice. Most of the media coverage of his confirmation centered on the sexual assault allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford but that's only one part of the story. In this episode, learn about the procedural tricks employed by Senate Republicans and the George W. Bush administration to place Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court and hear highlights from over 40 hours of Brett Kavanaugh's policy-oriented confirmation hearings that most of the country didn't see. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links Click here to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North Number 4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD117: Authorization for Limitless War Additional Reading Blog: Why the ACLU opposes Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court by Susan N. Herman, ACLU, October 3, 2018. Article: California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault by Emma Brown, The Washington Post, September 16, 2018. Records: Records, papers, decisions: Kavanaugh records and the Presidential Records Act, related author Meghan M. Stuessy, FAS.org, August 27, 2018. Report: ACLU report on Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, ACLU, August 15, 2018. Article: Brett Kavanaugh ruled Consumer Financial Protection Bureau structurally unconstitutional by Manuela Tobias, Politifact, July 25, 2018. Article: There's no conspiracy between Trump and Kennedy. There's just the swamp by David Litt, The Washington Post, July 3, 2018. Article: Donald Trump made Justice Kennedy an offer he couldn't refuse by Abigail Tracy, Vanity Fair, June 29, 2018. Article: Inside the White House's quiet campaign to create a Supreme Court opening by Adam Liptak and Maggie Haberman, The New York Times, June 28, 2018. Article: Here's what is known about the surprising choice to lead the CFPB by Francine McKenna, Market Watch, June 18, 2018. Article: The clock is running out on Mick Mulvaney by Renae Merle, The Washington Post, June 12, 2018. Article: Official cause of death for Antonin Scalia released by David Warren, Dallas News, February 2016. Article: George W. Bush's bizarre bathroom self-portraits laid bare by audacious hack by Sam Byford, The Verge, February 8, 2013. Resources Case Information: Carpenter v. United States Executive Order: Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act Sound Clip Sources Hearing: 2004 Kavanaugh Judicial Nomination Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, April 27, 2004. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 1:14:14 Senator Jeff Sessions (AL): Judges, if you’re confirmed, are not accountable to the public. You never stand for election again. You hold your office for life. Many of your decisions are unreviewable ultimately, and it leaves the American people subject to decisions in an anti-democratic forum unless that judge restrains him or herself and enforces the law as written or the Constitution as declared by the people of the United States. 1:24:15 Senator Patrick Leahy (VT): The question is secrecy in government, and this administration has shown more secrecy than any administration I’ve served with, from the Ford administration forward. You were the author, one of the first indicators of this increase in secrecy, Executive Order 13233, that drastically changed the Presidential Records Act. It gave former presidents, their representatives, and even the incumbent president, virtual veto power over what records of theirs would be released, posed a higher burden on researchers petitioning for access to what had been releasable papers in the past. After the order was issued, a number of historians, public interest organizations, opposed the change. The Republican-led House Committee on Government Reform approved a bill to reverse this. A lawsuit to overturn it was filed by Public Citizen, American Historical Association, Organization of American Historians, and a number of others. Why did you favor an increase in the secrecy of presidential records? Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, with respect to President Bush's Executive Order, I think I want to clarify how you described it. It was an order that merely set forth the procedures for assertion of privilege by a former president, and let me explain what that means. The Supreme Court of the United States in Nixon v. GSA in 1977, opinion by Justice Brennan, had concluded that a former president still maintains a privilege over his records, even after he leaves office. This was somewhat unusual because there was an argument in the case that those are government records. But the Court concluded that both the current president and the former president have the right to assert privilege to prevent the release of presidential records. That’s obviously a complicated situation. The issue was coming to a head for the first time because there’s a 12-year period of repose, so 12 years after President Reagan left office was when this President Bush came into office, and there was a need to establish procedures. How’s this going to work, two different presidents asserting privilege or having the right to review? No one really had a good idea how this was going to work. The goal of the Order was merely to set forth procedures. It specifically says in Section 9 of the Order that it’s not designed in any way to suggest whether a former president or a current president should or should not assert privilege over his records. You’re quite right, Senator Leahy, that there was initial concern by historians about the Order. I think it was—I like to think it was based on a misunderstanding, and Judge Gonzales and I undertook to meet every 6 months or so with a large group of historians, first to discuss the Order and explain it, and then after that, to discuss any problems they were having with the Order, and to help improve it, if they suggested ways for improvement. I think those meetings, I think the historians who’ve come to see us, have found them useful, and I think we helped to explain what we had in mind and what the president's Order meant in terms of the procedure. So, that’s my explanation of that Order. Hearing: 2006 Kavanaugh Judicial Nomination Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, May 9, 2006. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 58:44 Senator Orrin Hatch (UT): I also want to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Kavanaugh’s parents. I’ve known them for a long time. Ed Kavanaugh, for many years, he headed up the major trade association, the Cosmetic, Toiletries, and Fragrance Association, and he is deservedly admired by many in this town. And his mother served with distinction as a state court judge in Maryland for many, many years. 1:47:15 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Of course, as you know, I met you a number of years ago when I was Attorney General of Texas and had the honor to represent my state in an argument before the United States Supreme Court, and that was Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which involved a question of whether school children could voluntarily offer a prayer or an inspirational saying before school football games in Texas. And as you know, the Court ultimately ruled against that voluntary student prayer in the case. And Chief Justice Rehnquist, in dissent, said that the Court's ruling exhibited hostility to all things religious in public life. And I’m very concerned about that because I do believe that the founders thought that the posture of the government with regard to religious expression should be one of neutrality, not hostility. I realize as a lower court judge you’re going to be bound by the Supreme Court's precedents, but I wonder if you would address the issue of religious liberty and religious speech insofar as how you believe in your position as a circuit court judge, how you would approach those issues. Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, if I were confirmed to be a D.C. Circuit judge, I would of course follow the precedent of the Santa Fe case. That case addressed a question that had been left open in the Lee v. Weisman case in 1992. In that case, there was a school-sponsored prayer at a graduation ceremony where the government was actually involved, and one of the questions that was left open was, what happens if a student or a private speaker participates in a school event as a private speaker? And in the Santa Fe case, I think the Court concluded, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, that it could be attributed to the school and so was a violation of the Establishment Clause. I think the overall area represents a tension the Supreme Court has attempted to resolve throughout the years in terms of facilitating the free exercise of religion without crossing the Establishment Clause lines that the Court has set out for many years now. I know that the Court in recent years has made clear in a number of cases that private religious speech, religious people, religious organizations cannot be, or should not be, discriminated against and that treating religious speech, religious people, religious organizations equally—in other words, on a level playing field with nonreligious organizations—is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. In past years there had been some suggestion that treating religious organizations the same way in the public square as nonreligious organizations could sometimes be a violation of the Establishment Clause. I think the Court's really gone to a principle of equality of treatment does not ordinarily violate the Establishment Clause—again, equality of treatment of religious speech, religious people, religious organizations; equality in the public square. That's been something we've seen over the last, I'd say, decade or a little more. 2:04:00 Former Senator Sam Brownback (KS): But just give me your view of the Constitution as a document itself. Is this a—can you put yourself in a category? Do you have a view that it’s established as a living document, as a strict constructionist of the Constitution itself? Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, I believe very much in interpreting text as it’s written and not seeking to impose one's own personal policy preferences into the text of the document. I believe very much in judicial restraint, recognizing the primary policymaking role of the legislative branch in our constitutional democracy. I believe very much, as a prospective inferior court judge, were I to be confirmed, in following the Supreme Court precedent strictly and absolutely. Once as a lower court judge, I think that’s very important for the stability of our three-level system for lower courts to faithfully follow Supreme Court precedent, and so that’s something that I think’s very important. In terms of the independence of the judiciary, I think that’s something that’s the hallmark of our judiciary, the hallmark of our system, that judges are independent from the legislative branch and independent from the executive branch. I think that’s central to my understanding of the proper judicial role. Hearing: 2018 Day 1 Part 1 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 4, 2018. 12:55 Senator Chuck Grassley (IA): Good morning. I welcome everyone to this confirmation hearing on the nomination of— Senator Kamala Harris (CA): Mr. Chairman? Sen. Grassley: —Brett Kavanaugh— Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman? Sen. Grassley: —to serve as Associate Justice— Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be recognized for a question before we proceed? Unknown Speaker: Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Sen. Grassley: —of the Supreme Court of the United States. Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be recognized to ask a question before we proceed. The committee received just last night, less than 15 hours ago— Unknown Speaker: Mr. Chairman, regular order. Sen. Harris: —42,000 pages of documents that we have not had an opportunity to review or read or analyze. Sen. Grassley: You’re out of order. I’ll proceed. Sen. Harris: We cannot possibly move forward, Mr. Chairman, of this hearing. Sen. Grassley: I extend a very warm welcome to Judge Kavanaugh— Sen. Harris: We have not been given an opportunity to have a— Sen. Grassley: —to his wife, Ashley— Sen. Harris: —meaningful hearing on the nominee. Sen. Grassley: —his two daughters, their extended family and friends— Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague, Senator Harris. Mr. Chairman— Sen. Grassley: —Judge Kavanaugh’s many law clerks— Sen. Hirono: —we received 42,000 documents that we haven’t been able— Sen. Grassley: —and everyone else joining us today. Sen. Hirono: —to review last night, and we believe this hearing should be postponed. Sen. Grassley: I know this is an exciting day for all of you here, and you’re rightly proud of the judge. Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT): Mr. Chairman, if we cannot be recognized, I move to adjourn. Sen. Grassley: The American people— Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Sen. Grassley: —get to hear directly from Judge Kavanaugh later this afternoon. Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Mr. Chairman, we have been denied—we have been denied real access to the documents we need to advise— Unknown Speaker: Mr. Chairman, regular order is called for. Sen. Blumenthal: —which turns this hearing into a charade and a mockery of our norms. Sen. Grassley: Well— Sen. Blumenthal: And Mr. Chairman, I, therefore, move to adjourn this hearing. Sen. Grassley: Okay. Protester: This is a mockery and a travesty of justice. This is a travesty of justice, and we’ll not go back. Cancel Brett Kavanaugh. Adjourn the hearing. Leave me alone. Leave me alone. Unknown Speaker: _______(02:07—What do we have to do? Trump? We may have to work with Trump. In a demonstrative adjourn, we have to have—) Unknown Speaker: We’re not in an executive session. Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a roll-call vote on my motion to adjourn. 18:40 Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): Mr. Chairman, it is also— Senator Chuck Grassley (IA): I think that I— Sen. Hirono: Mr. Chairman, it is also not regular order for the majority— Sen. Grassley: Senator Hirono— Sen. Hirono: —to require the minority to pre-clear our questions, our documents and the videos we would like to use at this hearing. That is unprecedented. That is not regular order. Since when do we have to submit the questions and the process that we wish to follow to question this nominee? Sen. Grassley: Senator— Sen. Hirono: I’d like your clarification. Sen. Grassley: Senator Hirono— Sen. Hirono: I’d like your response on why you are requesting— Sen. Grassley: —I would ask that you— Sen. Hirono: — ____(00:30) order to submit our questions, too. Sen. Grassley: —I ask that you stop so we can conduct this hearing the way we have planned it. Maybe it isn’t going exactly the way that the minority would like to have it go— Protester: [unclear] Sen. Grassley: —but we have said for a long period of time that we were going to proceed on this very day, and I think we ought to give the American people the opportunity to hear whether Judge Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court or not. And you have heard my side of the aisle call for a regular order, and I think we ought to proceed in regular order. There will be plenty of opportunities to respond to the questions that the minority is— Protester 2: We didn’t vote for Judge Kavanaugh. [unclear] Sen. Grassley: —legitimately raising. Unknown Speaker: Get her thrown out of here, my god. Protester 3: [unclear] Sen. Grassley: And we will proceed accordingly. Unknown Speaker: What did she say? Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Mr. Chairman, under regular order, may I ask a point of order, which is that we are now presented with a situation in which somebody has decided that there are 100,000 documents protected by executive privilege, yet there has not been an assertion of executive privilege before the committee. How are we to determine whether executive privilege has been properly asserted— Protester 4: [unclear] Sen. Whitehouse: —if this hearing goes by without the committee ever considering that question? Why is it not in regular order for us to determine before the hearing at which the documents would be necessary whether or not the assertion of privilege that prevents us from getting those documents is legitimate or indeed is even an actual assertion of executive privilege? I do not understand why that is not a legitimate point of order at this point, because at the end of this hearing, it is too late to consider it. Senator Patrick Leahy (VT): Mr. Chairman, if I might add to this, on the integrity of the documents we’ve received, there really is no integrity. They have alterations, they have oddities, attachments are missing, emails are cut off halfway through a chain, recipient’s names are missing—many are of interest to this committee, but it’s cut off. The National Archives hasn’t had a chance to get us all that we want, even though you said on your website the National Archives would act as a check against any political interference. But— Protester 5: [unclear] Sen. Leahy: —I’d check after the hearing is over, there’s no check, I think we ought to at least have the National Archives finish it, and to have for the first time, certainly in my 44 years here, to have somebody say there’s a claim of executive privilege when the president hasn’t made such a claim, just puts everything under doubt. What are we trying to hide? Why are we rushing? Hearing: 2018 Day 1 Part 2 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 4, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 1 Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 53:00 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose? Brett Kavanaugh: Well, as a judge— Sen. Feinstein: As a judge. Kavanaugh: As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court—by “it,” I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey—and reaffirm many times Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember, and I understand the significance of the issue, the jurisprudential issue, and I understand the significance, as best I can, I always try and I do hear, of the real-world effects of that decision, as I try to do of all the decisions of my court and of the Supreme Court. 1:02:35* Brett Kavanaugh: I can tell you about the U.S. v. Nixon precedent, and I did about Chief Justice Burger’s role in forging a unanimous opinion—and, really, all the justices worked together on that—but Chief Justice Burger, who had been appointed by President Nixon—appointed by President Nixon—writes the opinion in U.S. v. Nixon, 8-0—Rehnquist was recused—8-0, ordering President Nixon to disclose the tapes in response to a criminal trial subpoena. A moment-of-crisis argument, I think July 8, 1974. They decided two weeks later a really important opinion, a moment of judicial independence, important precedent of the Supreme Court. 1:09:49 Senator Orrin Hatch (UT): I’d like to turn now to your work in the Bush administration. As you know, my Democratic colleagues are demanding to see every, every piece of paper or every single scrap of paper you ever touched during your six years in the Bush administration, in part because they want to know what role, if any, you played in developing the Bush administration’s interrogation policies. Well, six years ago, Ranking Member Feinstein, who was then the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a good one at that, issued a lengthy report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program under President Bush. The report detailed the origins, development, and implementation of the program. In 2014 a declassified version of that report was released to the public. The declassified version, or report, runs well over 500 pages, and your name appears nowhere in it. Now, I, myself, spent over 20 years on the Intelligence Committee. I know the quality of its staff and the work that they do, and I know the ranking member and how diligent she is. If you had played a role in the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, I think the ranking member would have discovered it. Numerous administration lawyers appear in the report, but not you. And that should tell us something. With that said, Judge Kavanaugh, I want to ask you for the record: what role, if any, did you play in developing or implementing the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation policies? Brett Kavanaugh: Well, the policies that are reflected and described in Senator Feinstein’s extensive, thorough report were very controversial, as you know, Senator—the enhanced interrogation techniques— Sen. Hatch: Right, right. Kavanaugh: —and the legal memos that were involved in justifying some of those techniques also were very controversial when they were disclosed in 2004. And I was not involved. I was not read into that program, not involved in crafting that program nor crafting the legal justifications for that program. In addition to Senator Feinstein’s report, the Justice Department did a lengthy Office of Professional Responsibility report about the legal memos that had been involved to justify some of those programs. My name’s not in that report, Senator, because I was not read into that program and not involved. There were a number of lawyers—and this came up at my last hearing—a number of lawyers who were involved, including a couple who were then judicial nominees. At my last hearing, I recall Senator Durbin asking about whether I also was likewise involved as these other judicial nominees had been, and the answer was no, and that answer was accurate, and that answer’s been shown to be accurate by the Office of Professional Responsibility report, by Senator Feinstein’s thorough report. 2:37:49 Senator Lindsey Graham (SC): So when somebody says post-9/11, that we’ve been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept? Brett Kavanaugh: I do, Senator, because Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which is still in effect. And that was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later. Sen. Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict? Kavanaugh: There is such a body, Senator. Sen. Graham: Is there a body of law that’s called the basic criminal law? Kavanaugh: Yes, Senator. Sen. Graham: Are there differences between those two bodies of law? Kavanaugh: Yes, Senator. Sen. Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government? Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes. Sen. Graham: Okay. So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government? Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government. Sen. Graham: Is there a longstanding— Kavanaugh: That’s long-settled law. Sen. Graham: Isn’t there also a long-settled law that—it goes back to Eisentrager case—I can’t remember the name of it— Kavanaugh: Yeah, Johnson v. Eisentrager. Sen. Graham: Right. —that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy have considered enemy combatants? Kavanaugh: They can be. Sen. Graham: Can be. Kavanaugh: They can be. They’re often—they’re sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military sense. Sen. Graham: Well, let’s talk about “can be.” I think the— Kavanaugh: Under Supreme Court precedent— Sen. Graham: Right. Kavanaugh: —just want to make….yeah. Sen. Graham: There’s a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military. Is that correct? Kavanaugh: That is correct. Sen. Graham: I think a couple of them were executed. Kavanaugh: Yeah. Sen. Graham: So if anybody doubts, there’s a longstanding history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don’t have a constitutional right to turn on your own government, collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently. What’s the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you could hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan? Are you familiar with that case? Kavanaugh: Yeah. Hamdi. Sen. Graham: Okay. So the bottom line is I want every American citizen to know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There's a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those differences? Kavanaugh: I do understand that there’re different bodies of law, of course, Senator. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 2 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 3 Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 25:10 Brett Kavanaugh: My case, I upheld, importantly I upheld limits on contributions in the RNC case and in the Bluman case, and the Supreme Court has upheld contribution limits generally but struck them down when they’re too low in cases like Randall v. Sorrell, and McCutcheon. 54:45 Brett Kavanaugh: The religious tradition reflected in the First Amendment is a foundational part of American liberty, and it’s important for us as judges to recognize that and not—and recognize too that, as with speech, unpopular religions are protected. Our job—we can, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, question their sincerity of a religious belief, meaning, is someone lying or not about it? But we can’t question the reasonableness of it, and so the Supreme Court has cases with all sorts of religious beliefs protected—Justice Brennan really the architect of that. So religious liberty is critical to the First Amendment and the American Constitution. 1:50:00 Brett Kavanaugh: All the significant wars in U.S. history have been congressionally authorized, with one major exception—the Korean War. And the Korean War is an anomaly in many respects, and I think some of—the fact that it was undeclared and unauthorized really did lead to the Youngstown decision. But, you know, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, the AUMF against al Qaeda, the 2003 Iraq War, and then going back, World War II, World War I, the War of 1812—they’re all congressionally authorized. You can go back throughout, and I specify that. And so the war power, the power to take the nation into war, at least a significant one—and there’s some questions about short-term air strikes and things like that—but a significant war, that’s the biggest of all, and that’s something that Hamilton talked about in ’69 and that our historical practice, I think, is actually lived up to. I don’t mean to footnote Korea—that’s an enormous exception—but since then, they’ve all been congressionally authorized. 1:56:30 Senator Ben Sasse (NE): And one of the reasons that the executive branch seems so powerful right now is, again, because of how weak the legislature is. I mean, it’s a fundamental part of why we have the term “president.” In the 1780s, this wasn’t a very common term in the English language. “President” was just a nounified form of the name “presiding officer,” and we made it up, our founders made it up so that we wouldn’t have a term that sounded a lot like a king. And so we wanted to be sure that the term “presiding officer” sounded pretty boring and administrative, because the legislative, the policymaking powers were supposed to sit in this body, and the Article Two branch is supposed to preside over and execute the laws that have been passed. It’s not supposed to be the locus of all policymaking in America, but one of the reasons we have some of these problems with so many of these executive agencies is because Congress regularly doesn’t finish its work, punch those powers to Article Two, and then it’s not clear who exactly can execute all those authorities. And so we end up with this debate about the unitary executive, and you had a different term for it, but unpack for us a little bit why you have a different view about both the prudence and the constitutionality of one-person-headed independent executive agencies or pseudo-independent agencies versus commission-structure-headed independent agencies. Brett Kavanaugh: The traditional independent agencies that were upheld by the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor in 1935 are multi-member independent agencies. And so usually sometimes three, five, occasionally more, but they’re multi-member independent agencies, and that’s been all the way through. And then the—for the significant independent agencies—the CFPB—and I had no—it’s not my role to question the policy or to question the creation of the new agency. In fact, I think it was designed for efficiency and centralization of certain overlapping authorities. It’s not my role to question that policy. Someone challenged the fact that it was headed, for the first time on something like this, by a single person. And a couple things, then, I wrote about in my dissent in that case—I’ll just repeat what I wrote in the dissent—I said, “First of all, that’s a departure from historical practice of independent agencies, and that matters according to the Supreme Court.” They had a previous case involving the PCAOB, where they had different innovation there that the Supreme Court had struck down in part because of the novelty of it. So departure from historical practice matters because precedent always matters, including executive precedent. Then, diminution of presidential authority beyond the traditional independent agencies in this sense. With traditional independent agencies, when a new president comes in office, almost immediately the president has been given the authority to designate a new chair of the independent agencies, so when a new—when President Obama came in, was able to designate new chairs of the various independent agencies, and the chairs, of course, set the policy direction and control the agenda. That’s historically been the way. That does not happen with the CFPB. And finally, having a single person—just going back to liberty—who’s in charge, who’s not removable at will by anyone, not accountable to Congress, in charge of a huge agency is something that’s different and has an effect on individual liberty. So a single person can make these enormous decisions—rule makings, adjudications, and enforcement decisions, all of them—and from my perspective—I am just repeating what I wrote here. I’m not intending to go beyond what I wrote in that opinion that was an issue of concern. And I did put in a hypothetical because it seems abstract that—I think we’ll realize this issue with that agency or any other—when a president comes in to office and has to live for three, four years with a CFPB director appointed by the prior president. And then I think everyone’s going to realize—of a different party— Sen. Sasse: Right. Kavanaugh: — in particular—and then I think everyone’s going to realize, wow, that’s an odd structure. Now, maybe not, but that’s what I wrote in my opinion that that will seem very weird because that’s not what happens with all the traditional independent agencies. And so whenever any president leaves and has appointed in the last two years a CFPB director, the new president might campaign on consumer protection. Let’s imagine, okay, presidential campaigns on consumer protection and consumer issues and then comes into office and can’t actually appoint a new CFPB director for the whole term of his or her office, that’s going to seem, I think, quite odd structurally. At least, that’s what I said in my opinion. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 4 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 4:45 Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT): I want to talk about Jane Doe in Garza v. Hagen. As you know, she was a 17-year-old unaccompanied minor who came across this border, having escaped serious, threatening, horrific physical violence in her family, in her homeland. She braved horrific threats of rape and sexual exploitation as she crossed the border. She was eight weeks pregnant. Under Texas law, she received an order that entitled her to an abortion, and she also went through mandatory counseling, as required by Texas law. She was eligible for an abortion under that law. The Trump administration blocked her. The Office of Refugee Resettlement forced her to go to a crisis pregnancy center, where she was subjected to medically unnecessary procedures. She was punished by her continued requests to terminate her pregnancy by being isolated from the rest of the residents. She was also forced to notify her parents, which Texas law did not require. And the pregnancy, which was eight weeks, was four weeks further when you participated on a panel that upheld the Trump administration in blocking her efforts to terminate her pregnancy. The decision of that panel was overruled by a full court of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. It reversed that panel, and the decision and opinion in that case commented “the flat barrier that the government has interposed to her knowing and informed decision to end the pregnancy defies controlling Supreme Court precedent.” And it said further, “The government’s insistence that it must not even stand back and permit abortion to go forward for someone in some form of custody is freakishly erratic.” In addition to being erratic, it also threatened her health because she was unable to terminate her pregnancy for weeks that further increased the risk of the procedure—one study said 38 percent every week her health was threatened. She was going through emotional turmoil. And yet, in your dissent, you would have further blocked and delayed that termination of pregnancy. All of what I said is correct, hence to the facts here, correct? Brett Kavanaugh: No, Senator. I respectfully disagree in various parts. My ruling, my position in the case would not have blocked— Sen. Blumenthal: It would have delayed it. And it would have set imperiously close to the 20-week limit under Texas law, correct? Kavanaugh: No. We were still several weeks away. I said several things that are important, I think. First— Sen. Blumenthal: Well, I want to go on because I can read your dissent, but I want to go to— Kavanaugh: Well, but you read several things, respectfully—first of all, I think the opinion was by one judge that you’re reading from that was not the opinion for the majority. Secondly, I was trying to follow precedent of the Supreme Court on parental consent, which allows some delays in the abortion procedure so as to fulfill the parental-consent requirements. I was reasoning by analogy from those. People can disagree, I understand, on whether we were following precedent, how to read that precedent, but I was trying to do so as faithfully as I could and explained that. I also did not join the separate opinion, the separate dissent, that said she had no right to attain an abortion. ____(04:29) I did not say that. And I also made clear that the government could not use this immigration-sponsor provision as a ruse to try to delay her abortion past, to your point, the time when it was safe. 21:15 Brett Kavanaugh: And I said, thirdly, that if the nine days or seven days expired, that the minor at that point—unless the government had some argument that had not unfolded yet that was persuasive, and since they hadn’t unfolded it yet, I’m not sure what that would have been—that the minor would have to be allowed to obtain the abortion at that time. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 5 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 1 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 30:35 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): It’s my understanding that by agreement with private lawyer Bill Burke, the chairman has designated 190,000 pages of Kavanaugh’s records “committee confidential,” and by doing this, Republicans argue members can’t use these documents at the hearing or release them to the public. Unlike the Intelligence Committee—and I’ve been a member for about two decades—the judiciary committee doesn’t have any standing rules on how and when documents are designated “committee confidential.” Previously, the judiciary committee has made material confidential only through bipartisan agreement. That has not been done in this case. So this is without precedent. Republicans claim that Chairman Leahy accepted documents on a committee-confidential basis during the Kagan administration. It’s my understanding that those documents were processed through the National Archives, not private partisan lawyers, and Republicans agreed. Ninety-nine percent of Elena Kagan’s White House records were publicly available and could be used freely by any member. By contrast, the committee has only seven percent of Brett Kavanaugh’s White House records and only four percent of those are available to the public. No Senate or committee rule grants the chairman unilateral authority to designate documents “committee confidential.” So I have no idea how that stamp “committee confidential” got on these documents. 39:10 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Mr. Chairman, I’m looking at a Wall Street Journal article, back during the Elena Kagan nomination. It says, document production from Elena Kagan’s years in the Clinton White House counsel’s office was supervised by Bruce Lindsey, whose White House tenure overlapped with Ms. Kagan. Bill Clinton designated Mr. Lindsey to supervise records from his presidency in cooperation with the National Archives and Records Administration under the Presidential Records Act. So President Bush, by choosing Mr. Burke, is doing exactly what President Clinton did in choosing Bruce Lindsey for that same purpose. 1:51:22 Brett Kavanaugh: My religious beliefs have no relevance to my judging. I judge based on the Constitution and laws of the United States. I take an oath to do that, and for 12 years I’ve lived up to that oath. At the same time, of course, as you point out, I am religious, and I am a Catholic, and I grew up attending Catholic schools. And the Constitution of the United States foresaw that religious people or people who are not religious are all equally American. As I’ve said in one of my opinions, the Newdow opinion, no matter what religion you are or no religion at all, we’re all equally American, and the Constitution of the United States also says in Article Six, no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. That was an important provision to have in the founding Constitution to ensure that there was not discrimination against people who had a religion or people who didn’t have a religion. It’s a foundation of our country. We’re all equally American. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 2 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 22:30 Senator Mike Lee (UT): What you were asked about was whether or not you were involved in crafting the policies that would govern detention of enemy combatants. Is that right? Brett Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And that was a classified program, classified at a very high level, presumably compartmentalized such that you would have had to have been read into that program in order to participate in that process. Is that right? Kavanaugh: I believe that’s correct. Read in. I wasn’t necessarily using the formal sense of that, but what I meant is I was not a part of that program. Sen. Lee: Okay. But that is a binary issue. You were either involved in the development of that policy or you were not. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And you were not. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And Tim Flanigan, who was, I believe, at the time the White House counsel. Kavanaugh: He was the deputy counsel. Sen. Lee: The deputy counsel. Has confirmed that you were not involved in that. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: We have your word and the word of the then-deputy White House counsel. Then, there is a separate issue. Well, I guess one could argue a related issue, but a separate— Protesters: [unclear] Unknown Speaker: ____(01:17—I don’t know if it’s worth it, but he said something that got read into it. I don’t know whether people understand what it means.) Sen. Lee: I assume that won’t be counted against me, there. Unknown Speaker: It will be counted against you. Sen. Lee: Oh, okay. All right, well, I’ll have to speak more quickly then. When we talk about being read into, that is a colloquial term that we sometimes refer to. It’s government speak that talks about being cleared to discuss certain classified matters. In any event, you were not brought into the development of this policy. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: Secondly, there was a separate, arguable related, but a distinct issue involving a meeting where you were asked for your opinion about how Justice Kennedy might react to certain legal arguments that people in the administration were pushing. Is that right? Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And you answered that question. Kavanaugh: I said that indefinite detention of an American citizen without access to a lawyer, which at the time was what was happening in that particular case, would never fly with Justice Kennedy. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 3 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 4 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 18:25 Senator Jeff Flake (AZ): Specifically, what impact does technology have on the Fourth and the First Amendments? Brett Kavanaugh: So I think the Carpenter case explains that once upon a time if a piece of information of yours ended up in the hands of a third party, and the government got a third party, that really wasn’t of any effect on your privacy. But now when all of our data is in the hands of a business, a third party, and the government obtains all your data, all your emails, all your tax, all your information, your financial transactions, your whole life is in the hands of a data company, and the government gets that, your privacy is very well affected. And that’s the importance, I think, of the Carpenter decision is that it recognizes that change in understanding of our understandings of privacy, and I think going forward, that’s going to be a critical issue. 1:27:10 Brett Kavanaugh: One of the things that we have to do as judges, as I’ve emphasized many times in this hearing, is maintain the independence of the federal judiciary, independence from politics, independence from political influence or public pressure or public influence. And part of that, part of the canons for federal judges, federal judiciary, is that we don’t attend political rallies, we’re not allowed to donate to political campaigns, support political candidates, put bumper stickers on our cars, signs in our yards. And one of the things I decided—we are allowed, technically, to vote, but one of the things I decided after I voted in the first election, and I read something about how the second Justice Harlan decided not to vote in elections because he thought that reinforced the independence that he felt as a judge. And I thought about that, and I decided to follow that lead. I’m not saying my approach is right, and other judges take a different approach on that, and I fully respect that. But for me it just felt more consistent for me, with the independence of the judiciary, not to vote, because I’ve always considered voting a sacred responsibility and one in which I think very deeply about the policies I’m supporting and the people I’m supporting, and that seemed almost as if I were taking policy views, at least to myself, into the voting booth, and I didn’t want to do that as a judge. So I decided to follow the lead of the second Justice Harlan. I’ll be the first to say I’m not the second Justice Harlan. He was a great justice on the Supreme Court and someone, of course, who I would be—if I were to be confirmed—honored to be on that Court and follow in his lead. Senator John Kennedy (LA): So you don’t vote in political elections. Kavanaugh: I do not vote in political elections. Sen. Kennedy: Interesting. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 5 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 6 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 7 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Hearing, Professor Blasey Ford Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 3:37 Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house. I drank one beer. Brett and Mark were visibly drunk. Early in the evening, I went up a very narrow set of stairs, leading from the living room to a second floor to use the restroom. When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind, into a bedroom across from the bathroom. I couldn’t see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed, and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. I yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me. And I tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my clothing. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They seemed to be having a very good time. Mark seemed ambivalent at times, urging Brett on, and at times telling him to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not. During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. And the last time that he did this, we toppled over, and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room. Directly across from the bedroom was a small bathroom. I ran inside the bathroom and locked the door. I waited until I heard Brett and Mark leave the bedroom, laughing, and loudly walked down the narrow stairway, pinballing off the walls on the way down. I waited, and when I did not hear them come back up the stairs, I left the bathroom, went down the same stairwell, through the living room, and left the house. I remember being on the street and feeling this enormous sense of relief that I escaped that house and that Brett and Mark were not coming outside after me. Hearing: Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Hearing, Professor Blasey Ford Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 1:22:10 Senator Dick Durbin (IL): Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you? Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: 100 percent. Hearing: Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Hearing, Judge Kavanaugh Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 10:04 Brett Kavanaugh: This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. 18:04 Brett Kavanaugh: From 2001 to 2006 I worked for President George W. Bush in the White House. As staff secretary, I was by President Bush’s side for three years and was entrusted with the nation’s most sensitive secrets. I travelled on Air Force One all over the country and the world with President Bush. I went everywhere with him, from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham Palace to the Vatican. Three years in the West Wing, five and a half years in the White House. 2:57:20 Senator John Kennedy (LA): None of these allegations are true. Brett Kavanaugh: Correct. Sen. Kennedy: No doubt in your mind. Kavanaugh: Zero. I’m 100 percent certain. Sen. Kennedy: Not even a scintilla. Kavanaugh: Not a scintilla. One hundred percent certain, Senator. Sen. Kennedy: Do you swear to God? Kavanaugh: I swear to God. Meeting: Meeting on Brett Kavanaugh Nomination, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 28, 2018. 4:12:55 Senator Jeff Flake (AZ): I have been speaking with a number of people on the other side. We’ve had conversations ongoing for a while with regard to making sure that we do due diligence here. And I think it would be proper to delay the floor vote for up to, but not more than, one week in order to let the FBI continue—to do an investigation, limited in time and scope to the current allegations that are there, and a limit in time to no more than one week. And I will vote to advance the bill to the floor, with that understanding.   Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

I andra avsnittet av Utgivarpodden möter vi Pia Rehnquist, chefredaktör på Sydsvenskan samt ansvarig utgivare för Helsingborgs Dagblad och Sydsvenskan. Hon pratar om snällhet och cynism, om Kim Wall och Hanif Bali, om tragik och glädje, och mycket mer. Och så avslöjar hon vem hon skulle vilja se som mottagare av Momma-priset. I Utgivarpodden möter Patrik Hadenius, vd på intresseorganisationen Utgivarna, ansvarig utgivare runt om i landet. De berättar hur de ser på sin roll, vilka beslut som är enkla och vilka som är svåra, vad läsarna, lyssnarna och tittarna reagerar på och om förtroendet för medierna. Ansvarig utgivare: Patrik Hadenius

Last week hearings in the U.S. Senate began for Supreme Court nominee Judge Bret Kavanaugh. In this edition of the Nixon Now Podcast, we look back at the justices President Nixon appointed to the highest court, and the challenges they faced in their respective confirmation processes. Our guest today successfully shepherded through arguably one of the most consequential nominees in the past half century, Justice William Rehnquist. He did this not once, but twice: when Justice Rehnquist became associate justice in 1971, and again when he became chief justice in 1986. Wally Johnson began his career as a special attorney in the organized crime section of the criminal division at the Department of Justice, ultimately leading the organized crime task force in Miami. He was minority counsel of the Senate judiciary subcommittee on criminal laws and procedures under ranking minority member, Senator Roman Hruska. In 1970, he was appointed by Attorney General John Mitchell as associate attorney general responsible for managing the Powell and Rehnquist confirmations before the Senate judiciary committee. From 1972 to 1973, he served in the White House in the vaunted congressional liaison office. From 1973 to 1975, Johnson served as assistant attorney general for land and natural resources. Today he remains a successful lawyer living in Cody Wyoming. Photo: President Nixon presents Lewis Powell (shown on the left of RN) and William Rehnquist (on right of RN) framed gifts recognizing their confirmation as Supreme Court justices on December 22, 1971. (Richard Nixon Presidential Library) Music: "I Fought the Law" by The Clash (1977). Interview by Jonathan Movroydis

Den 22:a oktober 2014 gästades Studentafton av Peter Wolodarski från DN, Jan Helin från Aftonbladet, Pia Rehnquist från Sydsvenskan och Fredric Karén från SVD. Samtalet kretsade kring krisen i dagspressen, supervalåret 2014 och framtidens journalistik. Moderator av Filip Struwe.

I hängmattan med Pia Rehnquist, chefredaktör på Sydsvenskan.

David Leitch is no stranger to crisis. During his career, he was chief counsel for the Federal Aviation Administration during the September 11th terrorist attacks where he was responsible for closing the skies to commercial flights, recruiting qualified Air Marshals, and turning airport security over to TSA. In addition, he was Ford Motor Company’s group vice president and general counsel during the auto industry bailout, when the survival of vital suppliers and General Motors was in doubt. Fortunately, his in-and-out government employment armed him with the tools to manage the legal affairs of our country’s largest and most important institutions during critical times. In this rebroadcast episode of In-House Legal, Randy Milch interviews David Leitch about his career path, crisis management, and leadership. Tune in to hear his opinions about GM’s bailout and bankruptcy as well as facilitating an ethical company culture. David Leitch is general counsel and a group vice president to Ford Motor Company where he’s worked since 2005. Prior to that, Leitch served in the White House as deputy counsel to President George W. Bush, chief counsel for the Federal Aviation Administration, and deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. In his early career, he served as law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist  and worked as a partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P. (now Hogan Lovells).

This week's episode starts a series of episodes that will examine individual justices, including their background, their big cases, and one big question about them moving forward.  This week covers Chief Justice Roberts, and specifically how Roberts stacks up against Rehnquist, Burger, and Warren.  Law starts at (02:06).

View the full event here: https://www.cato.org/events/lessons-censorship-how-schools-courts-subvert-students-first-amendment-rights From the 1940s through the Warren years, the Supreme Court celebrated free expression and emphasized the role of schools in cultivating liberty. But the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts retreated from that vision, curtailing certain categories of student speech in the name of order and authority. Drawing on hundreds of lower court decisions, Ross shows how some judges either misunderstand the law or decline to rein in censorship that is clearly unconstitutional, and she powerfully demonstrates the continuing vitality of the Supreme Court's initial affirmation of students' expressive rights.

American public schools often censor controversial student speech that the Constitution protects. Lessons in Censorship brings clarity to a bewildering array of court rulings that define the speech rights of young citizens in the school setting. Ross examines disputes that have erupted in our schools and courts over the civil rights movement; war and peace; rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals (LGBT); abortion; immigration; evangelical proselytizing; and the Confederate flag. She argues that the failure of schools to respect civil liberties betrays their educational mission and threatens democracy.From the 1940s through the Warren years, the Supreme Court celebrated free expression and emphasized the role of schools in cultivating liberty. But the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts retreated from that vision, curtailing certain categories of student speech in the name of order and authority. Drawing on hundreds of lower court decisions, Ross shows how some judges either misunderstand the law or decline to rein in censorship that is clearly unconstitutional, and she powerfully demonstrates the continuing vitality of the Supreme Court's initial affirmation of students' expressive rights.Lessons in Censorship was named the best book of 2015 on the First Amendment by Concurring Opinions (First Amendment News 91). More reviews of the work may be found at catherinejrosslawprof.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Why Thomas Jefferson? Specifically, why do we rely so much on T. Jeffy (and his buddy, Jemmy Madison) to speak for the Founders when it comes to religious freedom? Weren't there other Founders? Didn't they have different opinions? John Ragosta has done the research and written a book, and now he'll tell us all about it.

Don Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He blogs at Café Hayek. I invited him to discuss civil asset forfeiture on the podcast because of a conversation we had about it at a recent Mercatus Center colloquium. Civil asset forfeiture is the practice of the state taking someone’s property on suspicion that the property has been used for wrongdoing, without having to charge the owner with a crime. Civil asset forfeiture had its origins in British maritime law. The British had difficulties with pirates along the Barbary Coast. When the pirates were apprehended and their ships brought back to London, British courts had difficulty deciding what to do with these ships. The ships’ owners were outside the jurisdiction of British law, so the courts couldn’t try and convict them, but they couldn’t send the ships back to them either only to have them return to the seas with a fresh pirate crew! Parliament thus passed a law allowing the courts to charge the property itself with the crime if and only if the property’s owner was outside the jurisdiction of British law. Civil asset forfeiture, in this very limited form, was part of American law from the beginning. In the late 19th century, when alcohol was prohibited in some states, law enforcers started using civil asset forfeiture to confiscate the property of those suspected of producing, trafficking, and selling alcohol. This allowed them to circumvent due process, as American law only guarantees due process rights (such as the right to a trial by jury, the right to an attorney, the presumption of innocence, etc.) to human beings, and an alcohol still is not a human. The US Supreme Court ruled on civil asset forfeiture in the case of Bennis v. Michigan (which Don wrote about in a 1996 article coauthored with A. C. Pritchard). John Bennis was caught with a prostitute in the 1977 Dodge Dart he co-owned with his wife, Tina Bennis. As a result, the state confiscated the car. Tina Bennis, however, had no knowledge of her husband’s wrongdoing, and argued that she should at least be entitled to her half of the proceeds from the sale of the car. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, where then-Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in favour of the State of Michigan. Rehnquist argued that civil asset forfeiture was constitutional since it had been a part of British law when the Constitution was adopted. Rehnquist neglected the fact that the civil asset forfeiture law at that time had only applied when the property owner was outside the legal jurisdiction of the court. John and Tina Bennis were both within the legal jurisdiction of Wayne County, Michigan where the car was seized. Police usually seize the assets of those groups in American society that have little political clout. A young black man driving in an expensive car and carrying a lot of cash can be pulled over and have his car and cash seized on suspicion that he might be a drug dealer. White, middle-class Americans rarely face the blatant, unjust seizure of their assets. However, in a recent case, the City of Philadelphia seized the white, middle-class Sourovelis family’s home after their son sold $40 of heroin on the front lawn. The Sourovelis family is now suing the City of Brotherly Love in a class-action suit with others whose property the city has seized (see Sourovelis v. City of Philadelphia). This case has drawn more public attention to the injustice of civil asset forfeiture, though still less attention than the issue deserves. For more information on civil asset forfeiture, you can learn about it from the Institute for Justice, a DC-based public-interest law firm that works against civil asset forfeiture.

Last year’s cert denials in various same-sex marriage cases led to renewed discussion concerning the counterintuitive (to Christian, at least) notion but conventional wisdom that state courts are not bound to follow lower federal courts’ interpretations of federal law. While we discussed and debated this last fall, Amanda Frost was putting the finishing touches on an article reviewing, challenging, and otherwise completely examining this curious doctrine. Was Michael Dorf’s Hammer Blow, as we named the episode with him, the final blow or might some of Christian’s naive doubts be rehabilitated by Prof. Frost’s exhaustive analysis? Yep, that kind of cliffhanger is how we roll around here. Also, North Dakota and the permissibility of “funny business” in our email address. This show’s links: Amanda Frost’s faculty profile and writing A helpful list of North Dakota landmarks 2 Hidden Ways to Get More from Your Gmail Address The Georgia Law Summer Program in China, where you can be misinformed by Christian in person and in China Amanda Frost, Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Precedent on the Meaning of Federal Law? Our trilogy of prior episodes on this issue: with Anthony Kreis, with Michael Dorf, and with Steve Vladeck The series of blog posts coinciding with those episodes: from Michael Dorf here and here, Steve Vladeck, and Christian Turner Michael Dorf, Even More Thoughts on State Court (Non)Obligation to Follow Federal Appeals Court Precedents (Wherein I Respond to Professor Frost) Amanda Frost, The “Inferior” Federal Courts Chief Justice Roy Moore’s Administrative Order Eric Eckholm, Supreme Court Undercuts Alabama Chief Justice’s Argument to Delay Same-Sex Marriages Lockhart v. Fretwell, in which Justice Thomas concurred and briefly argued that the “Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court's interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court's interpretation” Cooper v. Aaron Martin v. Hunter’ Lessee Amanda Frost, Overvaluing Uniformity Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins; see also our episode all about Erie About the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine James Pfander, One Supreme Court: Supremacy, Inferiority, and the Judicial Power of the United States (see also this very brief book review) Dice v. Akron, Canton and Youngstown Railroad Co. Bush v. Gore (Rehnquist’s concurring opinion arguing that state courts may not interfere, even through state constitutional judgments, with certain legislatively enacted election laws that interact in advantageous ways with federal law) About Chevron deference Abbe Gluck, The States as Laboratories of Statutory Interpretation United States Telecom Association v. FCC Peter Strauss, One Hundred Fifty Cases Per Year: Some Implications of the Supreme Court's Limited Resources for Judicial Review of Agency Action Special Guest: Amanda Frost.

Steve Vladeck joins us to dive further into federal courts and federal rights. After getting Steve’s take on our discussion concerning federal courts of appeals and gay marriage last week with Michael Dorf, we discuss the issues raised by what Steve thinks could be a major new case in the Supreme Court this term: Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center. How and when can you enforce a federal statute or the Constitution against state officials? Simple question, right? This show’s links: Steve Vladeck’s profile, his writing, his info and posts on the Just Security blog, and his Twitter feed Oral Argument 34: There’s Not Really a Best Font with Matthew Butterick and Oral Argument 11: Big Red Diesel (when Butterick’s Practical Typography was first brought up on the show) Oral Argument 37: Hammer Blow, in which Michael Dorf delivered many lessons in the relationship between state courts and lower federal courts, an issue critical for the current state of gay marriage in the United States Danforth v. Minnesota (deciding that states, as a matter of state law, may apply retroactively new constitutional rules announced by the Supreme Court, even if federal law does not require retroactive application) Bush v. Gore (Rehnquist’s concurring opinion arguing that state courts may not interfere, even through state constitutional judgments, with certain legislatively enacted election laws that interact in advantageous ways with federal law) VOPA v. Stewart Stephen Vladeck, Douglas and the Fate of Ex Parte Young Douglas v. Independent Living Center The Eleventh Amendment: “The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.” Ex part Young (And note in dissent we find Justice Harlan, the heroic dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson, sounding the federalist alarm: Allowing private suits in federal courts against state officers for their official actions “would inaugurate a new era in the American judicial system and in the relations of the National and state governments. It would enable the subordinate Federal courts to supervise and control the official action of the States as if they were "dependencies" or provinces.”) The cases Steve cites as leading up to Ex parte Young: Hans v. Louisiana (interpreting the Eleventh Amendment to bar suits arising under federal law against a state not only by citizens of “another state” but also by its own citizens) and Lochner v. New York Adar v. Smith (the Fifth Circuit case to which Steve referred that permitted Louisiana to refuse to add a gay adoptive parent’s name to a birth certificate) Alexander v. Sandoval (marking the end of inferring private causes of action in federal statutes) Gonzaga University v. Doe Lyle Deniston, Opinion Analysis: A Right to Sue Under Medicaid – Maybe Pennsylvania Pharmacists Association v. Houstoun (in which then-Judge Alito notes that while providers may not sue under the Medicaid access requirements “Medicaid recipients plainly satisfy the intended-to-benefit requirement and are thus potential private plaintiffs” under section 1983) SCOTUSblog page for Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, which will be updated with briefs, arguments, and, ultimately, the Court’s decision Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida Steve’s amicus brief in Douglas Jonathan Freiman, to whom both Steve and Christian trace experience with detainee cases Special Guest: Steve Vladeck.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. A common perception is that since the Supreme Court frequently divides 5-4, it is balanced between conservatives and liberals. The vote breakdown, however, does not tell us anything about the Court's ideological breakdown. The Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction, and any group of nine justices will tend to choose cases that divide them because those cases are the ones that are the most legally uncertain.On April 14, 2009, Professor Geoffrey Stone presented a talk in the Chicago's Best Ideas lecture series entitled "Obama's Supreme Court." He discussed what he thinks the makeup of the current Court really is. (Throwing the word "Obama" in the title is a good way to get people in the door.) In a series of entries on Huffington Post, he describes what follows in more depth.First, Professor Stone served up some facts about the current Court. Seven of the nine sitting Justices were appointed by Republicans, as were twelve of the last fourteen appointees. The so-called "swing" vote on the Court has shifted from Justice Stewart to Powell to O'Connor to Kennedy, each of whom is widely considered more conservative than the last. According to an article by Professor Landes and Judge Posner, four of the current Justices are more conservative than any Justice since 1937 except Rehnquist. Finally, there are not any "full-throated" liberals like Justice Marshall or Brennan on the Court.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. A common perception is that since the Supreme Court frequently divides 5-4, it is balanced between conservatives and liberals. The vote breakdown, however, does not tell us anything about the Court's ideological breakdown. The Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction, and any group of nine justices will tend to choose cases that divide them because those cases are the ones that are the most legally uncertain.On April 14, 2009, Professor Geoffrey Stone presented a talk in the Chicago's Best Ideas lecture series entitled "Obama's Supreme Court." He discussed what he thinks the makeup of the current Court really is. (Throwing the word "Obama" in the title is a good way to get people in the door.) In a series of entries on Huffington Post, he describes what follows in more depth.First, Professor Stone served up some facts about the current Court. Seven of the nine sitting Justices were appointed by Republicans, as were twelve of the last fourteen appointees. The so-called "swing" vote on the Court has shifted from Justice Stewart to Powell to O'Connor to Kennedy, each of whom is widely considered more conservative than the last. According to an article by Professor Landes and Judge Posner, four of the current Justices are more conservative than any Justice since 1937 except Rehnquist. Finally, there are not any "full-throated" liberals like Justice Marshall or Brennan on the Court.