Podcasts about rucho

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for May 29, 2024U.S. Supreme Court Finds South Carolina Gerrymandering Case ‘Bleaching' Congressional District Not Racially Motivated Back in October 2023, U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments to determine whether redistricting by the South Carolina legislature was prohibited racial gerrymandering, or political gerrymandering, allowed by the 2019 Rucho decision.   The new opinion could have a dramatic effect on the 2030 redistricting cycle. To view the whole script of today's report, please go to our website.Today's LinksArticles & Resources:American Democracy Minute - U.S. Supreme Court Majority Skeptical of Racial Gerrymandering Claims in South Carolina Case, Cites Lack of “Alternative Map Requirement” U.S. Supreme Court - Opinion & Dissent in Alexander v. South Carolina Conference of the NAACPDemocracy Docket - US Supreme Court Upholds South Carolina Congressional Map, Dismantles Racial Gerrymandering PrecedentSCOTUS Blog - Court rules for South Carolina Republicans in dispute over congressional mapGroups Taking Action:NAACP Legal Defense Fund, ACLU, Constitutional Accountability Center, Campaign Legal Center, League of Women VotersPlease follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #RacialGerrymandering #VotingRightsAct #USSupremeCourt #SCOTUS

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! John Carpenter está de vuelta en el podcast Rucho. Traemos quizá su título menos celebrado, pero que no podíamos dejar de tratar con sus pros y sus contras. Ven a repartir moléculas con nosotros, no te arrepentirás. Con Pablo Uría y Luis Martínez Vallés Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

In this week's big voting rights case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning whether to uphold a South Carolina congressional map that is avowedly partisan (everyone agrees it favors Republicans, but partisan gerrymanders are A-OK under SCOTUS precedent). What is disputed here is whether the mapmakers relied on race to reach their partisan aims. A three-judge panel in South Carolina found it to be a racial gerrymander, and threw out the map. In arguments on Wednesday, it became clear that the high court's conservatives would rather toss out the evidence the lower court used to reach its decision, an unusual move for the highest court in the land, but perhaps the bed it's made for itself after ruling partisan gerrymanders non justiciable in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019. And so SCOTUS cos-played as a trial court for two hours on Wednesday. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Leah Aden, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund who argued the case on behalf of the South Carolina Conference of the NAACP, and Taiwan Scott - a South Carolina voter and individual plaintiff in the case, who says the electoral power of his Gullah Geechee community is suppressed by the gerrymander.  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 also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this week's big voting rights case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning whether to uphold a South Carolina congressional map that is avowedly partisan (everyone agrees it favors Republicans, but partisan gerrymanders are A-OK under SCOTUS precedent). What is disputed here is whether the mapmakers relied on race to reach their partisan aims. A three-judge panel in South Carolina found it to be a racial gerrymander, and threw out the map. In arguments on Wednesday, it became clear that the high court's conservatives would rather toss out the evidence the lower court used to reach its decision, an unusual move for the highest court in the land, but perhaps the bed it's made for itself after ruling partisan gerrymanders non justiciable in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019. And so SCOTUS cos-played as a trial court for two hours on Wednesday. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Leah Aden, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund who argued the case on behalf of the South Carolina Conference of the NAACP, and Taiwan Scott - a South Carolina voter and individual plaintiff in the case, who says the electoral power of his Gullah Geechee community is suppressed by the gerrymander.  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 also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this week's big voting rights case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning whether to uphold a South Carolina congressional map that is avowedly partisan (everyone agrees it favors Republicans, but partisan gerrymanders are A-OK under SCOTUS precedent). What is disputed here is whether the mapmakers relied on race to reach their partisan aims. A three-judge panel in South Carolina found it to be a racial gerrymander, and threw out the map. In arguments on Wednesday, it became clear that the high court's conservatives would rather toss out the evidence the lower court used to reach its decision, an unusual move for the highest court in the land, but perhaps the bed it's made for itself after ruling partisan gerrymanders non justiciable in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019. And so SCOTUS cos-played as a trial court for two hours on Wednesday. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Leah Aden, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund who argued the case on behalf of the South Carolina Conference of the NAACP, and Taiwan Scott - a South Carolina voter and individual plaintiff in the case, who says the electoral power of his Gullah Geechee community is suppressed by the gerrymander.  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 also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah and David return to their regularly scheduled Supreme Court programming, specifically to a racial gerrymandering case out of South Carolina (Sarah has copious notes). The two also have a lot to say about the insanity coming out of elite law schools. But first David revisits law of war to explain the international rules of siege warfare. Then: -Supreme Court justices speaking statistics -Non-justiciable gerrymandering -Bonkers law student statements -Some cancel culture clarity -Ideological hot houses at elite institutions -Harmonizing grace and morality Show notes: -Term statistics (2023) -South Carolina gerrymandering case -Rucho v. Common Cause -Allen v. Milligan -John Oliver talks Franklin, TN mayoral race -Chicago BLM chapter comments on Israel-Hamas war -Harvard students comment on Israel-Hamas war -David French: Difference between Kaepernick and Barr -GWU students comment on Israel-Hamas war Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode "Real Talk and Conversation" let's talk about your conservative supreme court and the crap they're doing. In addition to striking down affirmative action in college admissions, the Supreme Court has also struck down a number of other rulings in recent years that have been seen as beneficial to minority groups. These rulings include: Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (2020): The Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, also prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Rucho v. Common Cause (2019): The Court ruled that federal courts do not have the power to strike down partisan gerrymandering, which is the practice of drawing electoral districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage.Shelby County v. Holder (2013): The Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required certain states with a history of racial discrimination to obtain preclearance from the federal government before making changes to their voting laws.

Last week, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed to re-hear a case that found the state's redistricting maps unconstitutional under the state's constitution. The outcome of this decision could affect another case already before the U.S. Supreme Court, Moore v. Harper—a challenge to a decision striking down North Carolina's redistricting that involves the “independent state legislature” doctrine. Why did the North Carolina Supreme Court strike down the maps in the first place, and why is it revisiting that decision now? Will the U.S. Supreme Court still decide the Moore case and rule on the independent state legislature theory? And what standards should be used to decide whether redistricting maps are politically gerrymandered? To discuss these questions and address the latest developments in these crucial gerrymandering cases, Misha Tseytlin of the law firm Troutman Pepper and Guy-Uriel Charles of Harvard Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen.  Resources   Moore v. Harper, (oral argument: video via C-SPAN; transcript) Amicus Brief by Misha Tsyetlin filed on behalf group of New York Voters, Moore v. Harper  Amicus Brief by Misha Tsyetlin filed on behalf of members of Congress from the North Carolina delegation, Rucho v. Common Cause  Amicus Brief by Guy-Uriel Charles and Deepak Gupta on behalf of Mathematicians, Students and Professors, Rucho v. Common Cause Gill v. Whitford (2018) Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

2023 Anti-Voter Predictions -  Hyper-Partisan Courts Means More Gerrymandering on the HorizonToday's LinksArticles & Resources:U.S. Supreme Court -  2019's Rucho v. Common Cause Decision New York Times  - The Election Is Over. The Fight Over Voting Rules and Gerrymanders Isn't.Dallas Morning News - Razor-thin GOP majority in Congress rests on 4 ‘extra' seats from Texas gerrymanderWashington Monthly - The Decline and Possible Resurrection of Radical GerrymanderingGroups Taking Action:League of Women Voters US, Redistricting Advocacy Organizations,  Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition, Fair Districts Ohio, Democracy North Carolina Today's Script:  (Variations occur with audio due to editing for time) You're listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.We end our 2023 predictions with gerrymandering, and the court actions which may make it permanent in some states.In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that state redistricting was an inherently political process and declined to get involved. To anti-voter state legislatures, this was a green light for gerrymandering, which engineered new partisan maps in North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin,New York, and many other states.   In Ohio, the state supreme court ruled state legislature and Congressional maps as unconstitutional, but its courageous chief justice is retiring, and a partisan replacement is expected in 2023.  In Wisconsin, Democrats were 46% of the vote in the Midterms, but won only 33% of the state assembly because of extreme gerrymandering in 2021.  An April 2023 election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court may determine whether gerrymandering is there to stay.And finally to North Carolina and the Moore v. Harper case, where a decision is expected in early summer 2023.  A gerrymandering case,  it's really about the ultimate power of legislatures over elections.    Our prediction for 2023:   Even if the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't buy into the fringe “independent state legislature” theory in Moore v. Harper, state and federal courts packed with Federalist Society judges will greenlight even more partisan and racial gerrymandering in the years to come. We always have more at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org. I'm Brian Beihl.

Last week, in episodes 74 and 75, I read the majority and dissenting opinions in the case Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). The majority held that political gerrymandering of congressional districts, as opposed to racial gerrymandering which is prohibited by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, is a political question and thereby "nonjusticiable," or beyond the Court's power to resolve. But, the dissent argued that the Court had already held apportionment cases were indeed reviewable by federal courts in Baker v. Carr and twice upheld in Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims - both decided in 1964. Collectively, these three cases are known as the "One person, One Vote" cases because they were concerned with ensuring substantial equality of voting districts when compared to the actual population. In other words, if a quarter of a state identifies with party A and there are four districts, party A should have one district, not three or four.  The Court in Rucho ignored the precedents established fifty years earlier in the Marshall Court's "one person, one vote" cases - in favor of reviving the even older precedents of non-justiciability under the Frankfurter Court.  Chief Justice Marshall thought today's case so important that, when he was later asked which case he was most proud of during his tenure on the Court, he did not say Brown v. Board of Education - he said this one, Baker v. Carr was. Because no kind of equality will last for long if it doesn't extend to the ballot box.  I'm still reading and recording this case right now, but I'm so excited for you all to hear it that I thought I would tell you about it now, before election day is over, so you'll be sure to come back and listen by the time I get it published.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez. Music by Epidemic Sound

Last week, in episodes 74 and 75, I read the majority and dissenting opinions in the case Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). The majority held that political gerrymandering of congressional districts, as opposed to racial gerrymandering which is prohibited by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, is a political question and thereby "nonjusticiable," or beyond the Court's power to resolve. But, the dissent argued that the Court had already held apportionment cases were indeed reviewable by federal courts in Baker v. Carr and twice upheld in Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims - both decided in 1964. Collectively, these three cases are known as the "One person, One Vote" cases because they were concerned with ensuring substantial equality of voting districts when compared to the actual population. In other words, if a quarter of a state identifies with party A and there are four districts, party A should have one district, not three or four.  The Court in Rucho ignored the precedents established fifty years earlier in the Marshall Court's "one person, one vote" cases - in favor of reviving the even older precedents of non-justiciability under the Frankfurter Court.  Chief Justice Marshall thought today's case so important that, when he was later asked which case he was most proud of during his tenure on the Court, he did not say Brown v. Board of Education - he said this one, Baker v. Carr was. Because no kind of equality will last for long if it doesn't extend to the ballot box.  I'm still reading and recording this case right now, but I'm so excited for you all to hear it that I thought I would tell you about it now, before election day is over, so you'll be sure to come back and listen by the time I get it published.   Music by Epidemic Sound

Audio of Justice Kagan's dissenting opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). Last episode, I read the 2019 majority opinion Rucho v. Common Cause - a case in which a three-judge District Court ruled that North Carolina's 2016 congressional district map was the product of Republican-directed partisan gerrymandering, enjoining the state from using the map after November 2018. North Carolina Republicans appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Court consolidated Rucho with a very similar gerrymandering case out of Maryland - only that case was at the direction of Democrats. In the 5-4 majority opinion, split along their own ideological and partisan lines, the majority held that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable because they present a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts. Today I'll be reading the dissenting opinion in this Supreme Court case which held that - not only is partisan gerrymandering within the Court's reach - ignoring it ultimately robs Americans of their most fundamental constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process and to choose their political representatives - not the other way around.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.   Music by Epidemic Sound.

Audio of the 2019 opinion of the Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause. A three-judge District Court ruled that North Carolina's 2016 congressional district map was the product of partisan gerrymandering, enjoining the state from using the map after November 2018. North Carolina Republicans appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 opinion, split along their own ideological and partisan lines, the court held that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable because they present a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts. However, the majority opinion is 34 pages long - which seems like an awfully long reach for an argument that is beyond their reach. A significant portion of these pages seem to argue that partisan gerrymandering is simply the way it is in American politics and that, unless such gerrymandering is racial and in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, it's all just part of the game. Now, that's a lot of arguing against a claim that the majority holds is simply none of their business. In the next episode I'll be reading the dissenting opinion in this case in which the minority called-out the Court for ignoring the opportunity to address a critical question involving the violation of “the most fundamental of . . . constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process."   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.   Music by Epidemic Sound.  

In the past few weeks alone, the Supreme Court has delivered a firestorm of conservative legal victories. States now have far less leeway to restrict gun permits. The right to abortion is no longer constitutionally protected. The Environmental Protection Agency has been kneecapped in its ability to regulate carbon emissions, and by extension, all executive branch agencies will see their power significantly diminished.But to focus only on this particular Supreme Court term is to miss the bigger picture: In the past few decades, conservative court majorities have dragged this country's laws to the right on almost every issue imaginable. Shelby County v. Holder gutted the Voting Rights Act and opened the door for states to pass restrictive voting laws. Rucho v. Common Cause limited the court's ability to curb partisan gerrymandering. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission unleashed a torrent of campaign spending. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 weakened unions. A whole slew of cases, including some decided on the shadow docket during the Covid-19 pandemic, undercut federal agencies' power to help govern in an era of congressional gridlock. And that's only a partial list.Kate Shaw is a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, a co-host of the legal podcast Strict Scrutiny and a former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens. In this episode, she walks me through the most significant Supreme Court cases over the past 20 years, from the court's decision to hand George W. Bush the presidency in 2000, to the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, to the assertion of an individual's right to bear arms.Along the way, we discuss the right's decades-long effort to transform American law from the bench, how Republican-appointed judges have consistently entrenched Republican political power, the interpretive bankruptcy of constitutional originalism, how the Warren Court radicalized the conservative legal movement, what might happen to decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges now that the court majority seems to be so comfortable throwing out precedent, what cases to watch in the Roberts Court's next term, and more.Mentioned:“After Citizens United: How Outside Spending Shapes American Democracy” by Nour Abdul-Razzak, Carlo Prato and Stephane Wolton“The Most Important Study in the Abortion Debate” by Annie LowreyBook recommendations:The Turnaway Study by Diana Greene FosterTorn Apart by Dorothy RobertsWho Decides? by Jeffrey S. Sutton51 Imperfect Solutions by Jeffrey S. SuttonThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin and Rogé Karma; fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Rollin Hu, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair; original music by Isaac Jones; mixing by Isaac Jones; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Special thanks to Kristin Lin, Kristina Samulewski, David A. Kaplan, Ian Millhiser, Aziz Rana and Kate Redburn.

Así fue la primera vez de Víctor Sánchez , es el tema que estamos platicando al aire, cuando dejamos de ser virginios. ¿A qué edad dejaste de ser casto y puro? Escucha las aventuras de Víctor y Payaso Rucho cuando dejaron de ser señoritos. Síguenos en twitter , instagram , tik tok , youtube y facebook nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz Y escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

Víctor Sánchez y Payaso Rucho regresan de vacaciones.Escucha todas las aventuras que contarán en este programa. El público los pondrá al día con todos los chismes que te doblarán de la risa. Síguenos en twitter , instagram , tik tok , youtube y facebook nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz Y escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

Payaso Rucho fue tratado como piojo en el banco. cuando fue a pedir un préstamo lo invitaron a que se retirara y no hiciera perder más el tiempo a los ejecutivos. Llegó enojadísimo a cabina. No te pierdas este programa. Síguenos en twitter , instagram , tik tok , youtube y facebook nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz Y escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

Le envían a payaso Rucho dinero de Estados Unidos y él muy feliz se dirige a cobrarlo, pero cual fue su sorpresa que no pueden pagarle el dinero. Descubre el motivo. No cabe duda que la vida hace leña del árbol caído. Síguenos en twitter , instagram , tik tok , youtube y facebook nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz Y escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

Entre chistes y locuras hoy el programa se torna muy divertido, entérate por qué Víctor Sánchez regaña al payaso Rucho en pleno programa y Macumba por defenderlo también le toca lo suyo. No te pierdas este programa y a disfrutar. Síguenos en twitter , instagram , tik tok , youtube y facebook nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz Y escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

On today's episode, Sarah and David spend serious time discussing the Supreme Court's latest voting rights decision, then they launch into their long-awaited, much anticipated analysis of Ketanji Brown Jackson's “most controversial” opinion (spoiler alert: it's not that controversial). They end with a chat about free speech on campus and why the culture matters. Show Notes:-Revisiting the History of the Independent State Legislature Doctrine-Eradicating Bush-League Arguments Root and Branch: The Article II Independent-State-Legislature Notion and Related Rubbish-Merrill v. Milligan-Moore v. Harper-Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n-Rucho v. Common Cause-Make The Road New York v. McAleenan-Make The Road New York v. Wolf

Rucho sufre un fuerte mareo antes de entrar a cabina, espantando a los que estaban en el restaurante ya que levantaba la voz diciendo que se sentía mal. Recibió los primeros auxilios de parte de unos comensales que lograron estabilizarlo. Entérate qué fue lo que le sucedió y todos los por menores. Síguenos en twitter , instagram , tik tok , youtube y facebook nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz Y escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

La Chahuistle se enferma de COVID y Rucho no quiere ir a visitarla, ella necesita medicamento y le pide a él le responda como hombre... no como payaso. Entérate que excusa da Rucho para no ir a visitar a su novia a la CDMX. Síguenos en twitter , instagram , tik tok , youtube y facebook nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz Y escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

Cosas extrañas experimentaron los personajes de El Vacilón el día que entraron a un antro gay. Aquí nos narran todos los por menores de lo sucedido...¿A quienes se encontraron? ¿Qué les propusieron?. Sin censura entérate de esta aventura diferente. No dejarás de reír con este programa. Síguenos en twitter , instagram , tik tok , youtube y facebook nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz Y escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

El payaso Rucho recibe muy temprano serenata con mariachi por motivo de su cumpleaños, además un colchón matrimonial de regalo por parte de la chagüiscle que a pesar que ella vive en México y Rucho en Geo 2 de Veracruz no fue impedimento para que lo consintiera. Escucha los pormenores de toda esta sorpresa. Síguenos en twitter , instagram , tik tok , youtube y facebook nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz Y escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

Hoy estamos celebrando en cabina el cumpleaños número 69 del payaso Rucho y las llamadas y mensajes no dejen de llegar... algunos felicitándolo y otros reclamándole que por qué no va a hacer fiesta, que es un piojo. Escuche todos los comentarios de los radioescuchas en este divertido programa. Síguenos en twitter , instagram , tik tok , youtube y facebook nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz Y escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

Hoy la pregunta que están haciéndole al público es: ¿Hasta qué edad los niños reciben regalos de los reyes magos? El público responde también qué fue lo que pidieron y te sorprenderás con las respuestas de Rucho y Macumba Te vas a divertir con las locuras del vacilón de La Fiera 94.1 F.M. Síguenos en twitter , instagram , tik tok , youtube y facebook nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz Y escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

Anécdotas y consejos para recibir a los reyes magos y la pregunta ¿Para qué vivimos? Escucha lo que el público responde y el por qué no salimos adelante. Chascarrillos y buen humor con las locuras de este trío Víctor, Macumba y Rucho. Síguenos en twitter , instagram , tik tok , youtube y facebook nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz Y escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

Entre chistes y vaciladas se fue la mañana. Hoy el público mandaba sus chistes y Víctor Sánchez y Rucho los contaban al aire, también platicamos de las conexiones con el más allá y con nuestros familiares difuntos. Este programa no te lo puedes perder. Síguenos en twitter , instagram , tik tok , youtube y facebook nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz Y escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

No te pierdas este programa, donde vas a enterarte de todo lo que les paso a Víctor Sánchez y Payaso Rucho en su gira cómica en Houston,Tx. No pararás de reír con todas las aventuras de este par de locos en Estados Unidos. Y siguenos en todas nuestras redes sociales como @lafieraveracruz

Hoy celebran el dia de los trabajadores de la radio, el problema es que a Rucho y Macumba, nadie los felicita, porque dicen que ellos no trabajan, solo van a perder el tiempo. El programa se torna muy mexicano, con chistes y llamadas donde les preguntan que sienten ser mexicanos, escuche las respuestas del público que no se esperaban los locutores. Escuchanos en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM , lafiera.mx y desde las bocinas inteligentes vía streaming . Síguenos en todas las redes , nos encuentras como @lafieraveracruz .

Veracruz sorprendido por el color rojo que se puso en el cielo, el público nos envió fotos a cabina, Todos se creían expertos en el tema y dan sus propias conclusiones. Rucho se cree astrólogo y adivino, escucha como el público se le va encima por que como siempre todo sabe y no sabe nada. Síguenos en todas las redes @lafieraveracruz Escúcha el Vacilón de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM , lafiera.mx y vía streaming desde las bocinas inteligentes .

El payaso Rucho es regañado por Víctor Sánchez ya que no está interpretando bien el tema musical, se torna muy cómico cuando el público no lo deja cantar porque están llamando a cabina y lo interrumpen. Escucha este programa donde tú también podrás tomar una clase de canto con el maestro de vocalización Víctor Sánchez. Síguenos en todas las redes sociales twitter , facebook , instagram , tik tok , youtube como La Fiera Veracruz . Y escúcha "El Vacilón" en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM , www.lafiera.mx y en las bocinas inteligentes vía streaming.

Hoy están sacando una nota del bikini más caro del mundo, que tiene un valor de 600 millones de pesos. Esta nota la encontraron en el portal www.lafiera.mx y le hacen burla a Rucho que en cuánto valora el calzón que trae en ese momento. También el público está dando el valor aproximado de cada calzón viejo que tienen en sus casas. Escucha en vivo "El vacilón " de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM , lafiera.mx y vía streaming en las bocinas inteligentes . Síguenos en todas las redes sociales como @lafieraveracruz

Hoy debatimos sobre las aventuras y anécdotas de los payasos , salieron varios trapitos al sol de payasos veracruzanos que hasta borrachos les dijeron . Imagínate cómo le fue a Rucho , se lo acabaron . Te vas a divertir con este programa y todas sus locuras . Escucha "El Vacilón " en vivo en La Fiera 94.1 FM o www.lafiera.mx de lunes a viernes a las 10 am . Y síguenos en todas nuestras redes sociales como @lafieraveracruz

En este programa una señora se le declara al payaso Rucho y le pide que vaya a su casa, él se resiste porque tiene pareja. Pero la pretendienta dice que ella será muy discreta. Escucha esta locura de amor donde Rucho es el príncipe azul de la colonia. Escucha en vivo "El Vacilón" de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx Síguenos en facebook , twitter , instagram , tik tok y youtube como @lafieraveracruz

Rucho todo un hombre lomo plateado, pelo en pecho y machista, ahora si dobló las manitas al aire ya que celebraba 10 años de novio con La Chahuistle y tuvo que dedicarle unas palabras de amor , ya te imaginaras los comentarios del público, de cursi y ridículo no lo bajaban. Siguenos en twitter , instagram, youtube , facebook y tik tok como La Fiera Veracruz . Y escucha El Vacilón de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y lafiera.mx

No pararás de reír con este programa donde las locuras , chascarrillos y buen humor están al por mayor. Chistes picosos y mucho vacilón, ponte cómodo y a disfrutar de este programa. Recuerda seguirnos en nuestras redes twitter , facebook , instagram , youtube y tik tok La Fiera Veracruz Y escucha el programa en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y lafiera.mx

Las llamadas internacionales llegan con todo , Kumbala llama y nos deja sorprendidos. Tienes que escuchar este programa cargado de todas las locuras de Víctor , Rucho y Macumba , este trío de locos radiofónicos. Escúcha aventuras, anécdotas y mucho vacilón. Recuerda seguirnos en nuestras redes twitter , facebook , instagram , youtube y tik tok La Fiera Veracruz Y escucha el programa en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y lafiera.mx

Víctor Sánchez recibe su vacuna del covid 19 y se queja que se siente extraño, y llega hasta chillar al aire, como niña,por que le duele el brazo. Y en lugar de que el payaso Rucho lo consuele, se la pasa burlándose de él. Todo el público da recomendaciones, Pero Victor no quiere hacer caso. No te pierdas este programa, te vas a divertir. Siguenos en redes sociales @lafieraveracruz y escúcha el programa en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am en La Fiera 94.1 FM y www.lafiera.mx

Entre chistes y canciones es el último programa que cubrieron Victor y Rucho por la tarde , en lugar de La Muñeca Salgado . El cotorreo con la gente que llamaba a cabina se salió de control . Recuerda escucharnos en vivo de lunes a viernes a las 10 am y seguirnos en nuestras redes sociales @lafieraveracruz

Regresan a cabina Víctor Sánchez y Payaso Rucho después de su gira en la unión americana, escucha todas las aventuras que les pasaron a este dúo de locos. Recuerda escuchar el vacilón de lunes a viernes a las 10 am .

Judicial internship applications, Zoom cold calls, activist judges, Roe v. Wade, Rucho v. Common Cause, free exam prep resources... what a serious episode of Law School In Brief that definitely doesn't feature stories of wild animal encounters and air horns.

Today, our hosts are taking a break from the news cycle to share some fun facts about the Supreme Court and answer a series of questions from their listener mailbox: Are Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices more ideologically reliable than their Republican-appointed counterparts? What are some cases where you are inclined to agree with the legal reasoning but were bothered by the policy outcome? And perhaps most important, how should one go about hiring an attorney? Sarah and David have the scoop.   Show Notes: -“Cleaning Up Quotations” by Jack Metzler in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process. -“ ‘(Cleaned Up)’ Parenthetical Arrives in the Supreme Court” by Eugene Volokh in Reason. -“Larry Flynt’s Life in Contempt” by Ross Anderson in Los Angeles Magazine. -“Empirical SCOTUS: Interesting meetings of the minds of Supreme Court justices” by Adam Feldman in SCOTUSBlog. -Federal Tort Claims Act and Immigration and Nationality Act. -Cases they mentioned: Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.,  Knick v. Township of Scott, Bostock v. Clayton County, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, Morse v. Frederick, Rucho v. Common Cause and Kelo v. City of New London. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Recorded on March 5th 2021 Campus Vote Project Intern Emma Godel moderates a conversation between CVP Student Advisory Board Members Katya Ehresman & Kevin Ballen as well as Democracy Fellows Jeremy Johnson & Raymond Barber to discuss HR1. If passed by the Senate, HR1 - the For the People Act of 2021 - would represent one of the most significant advancements of voting rights since 18-year-olds became legally allowed to vote (by constitutional amendment, might we add) or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed into law. Stirrings of meaningful institutionalized civic engagement on college campuses, same-day voter registration, improved student access to ballot boxes, removal of dark money from politics, buttressing of ethics rules in politics, oh my! But what hurdles does it face? Does it go too far, or perhaps not far enough? Is student voting actually sexy, or are you just a try-hard for trying to get people to vote? Students weigh in. If you're a student and want to join the Student Voting Network, you can join us here: bit.ly/svnslack If you want to find more resources about student voting in your state, check out Campus Vote Project's nationwide database for voting information: https://www.campusvoteproject.org/ Other HR1 informational guides: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/annotated-guide-people-act-2021 https://my.lwv.org/california/diablo-valley/article/summary-hr-1-people-act Pertinent voting rights and election finance caselaw: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (2018), Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), Recommended readings: Anoll, A., & Israel-Trummel, M. (2019). Do felony disenfranchisement laws (de) mobilize? A case of surrogate participation. The Journal of Politics, 81(4), 1523-1527. Uncounted: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America by Gilda R. Daniels, Hasen, R. L. (2020). Three pathologies of American voting rights illuminated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and how to treat and cure them. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 19(3), 263-288. https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2020.0646 , Kelly, J. (2012). The strategic use of prisons in partisan gerrymandering. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 37(1), 117-134. The Myth of Voter Fraud by Lorraine C. Minnite Produced by Emma Godel, Kevin Ballen, Raymond W. Barber, Jeremy Johnson, Katya Ehresman, and Benjamin Nixon Music & Editing by Benjamin Nixon

Ruth Greenwood, co-director of the Campaign Legal Center and litigator for key gerrymandering cases at the Supreme Court (Gill v. Whitford, Rucho v. Common Cause), speaks to us about battles for redistricting in the court and on the ground.

This episode takes a look at three different cases: Reynolds v. Sims (1964) about malapportioned districts; Shaw v. Reno (1993) about racial gerrymandering; and Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) about partisan gerrymandering. According to the Supreme Court, districts cannot be malapportioned or drawn in a way that intentionally groups voters based on race. The practice of intentionally grouping voters based on partisanship is not something the Court is willing to address, however, and Chief Justice John Roberts explains why in his opinion announcement in Rucho.

Note to listeners: this interview was recorded shortly before Election Day. Our guest is Jonathan Rodden, Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and author of Why Cities Lose: The Deep Roots of the Urban-Rural Political Divide. Jonathan also authored an amicus brief in a partisan gerrymandering case that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 (details below). Ari Stern, Associate Professor of Mathematics and Statistics at Washington University in St. Louis, joins as guest co-host. Ari authored a separate amicus brief in support of the same parties in the same SCOTUS partisan gerrymandering case (details below). Appendices: Jonathan Rodden: Harvard economist Benjamin Enke’s research on public opinion and the distinction between moral universalism and moral communalism. Greg Shill: The Road to Inequality: How the Federal Highway Program Polarized America and Undermined Cities by Clayton Nall and Clayton's interview with Sam Sklar. Jeff Lin: Discussion of long-run urban dynamics in (1) the short story “More Stately Mansions” by John Updike in the collection Trust Me, and (2) Portage and Path Dependence by Hoyt Bleakley and Jeffrey Lin. Ari Stern: The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? by Michael J. Sandel Amicus briefs authored by Jonathan and Ari in a recent SCOTUS partisan gerrymandering case: Jonathan Rodden: Brief for Common Cause et al. as Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees, Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S.Ct. 2484 (2019) (No. 18-422). Ari Stern: Brief for Common Cause et al. as Amicus Brief of Mathematicians, L. Professors, and Students in Support of Appellees and Affirmance, Rucho v. Common Cause 139 S.Ct. 2484 (2019) (No. 18-422). Follow us on the web or on Twitter: @denselyspeaking, @jeffrlin, @greg_shill. Producer: Schuyler Pals. The views expressed on the show are those of the participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the Federal Reserve System, or any of the other institutions with which the hosts or guests are affiliated.

The hosts reflect on the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings, then move on to discussing gerrymandering, the practice of drawing up voting districts to favor a particular political party. Specifically, they talk about Rucho v. Common Cause, a 2019 case in which the Supreme Court not only refused to rule on two states’ gerrymandered maps, they found all partisan gerrymandering to be outside the purview of the Court going forward.    Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.    Please support our sponsors:    BuyRaycon.com/FIVEFOUR   HelixSleep.com/FIVEFOUR

In the fourth episode of The Consent of the Governed, “The People Are Sovereign,” host Carter Hanson dives deep into Rucho v. Common Cause (the most recent Supreme Court ruling on gerrymandering) and breaks down the majority opinion, revealing the fallacies and misrepresentations in the majority's argument and the destructive power of Rucho.   From the episode: “Gerrymandering is a crisis of democracy, hindering political evolution and realization by removing the voice of the citizen in their just representation and giving that power to a handful of partisan cartographers. What the founders intended for the redistricting process is ultimately beside the point: the truest respect given to the founders is progress, and no issue calls for substantial reform and action like partisan gerrymandering.”   The Consent of the Governed is hosted, produced, and written by Carter Hanson, from his home in Boulder, Colorado. The Consent of the Governed is the main expression of my Kolbe Fellowship project. The Kolbe Fellowship program is a ten-week research fellowship for social sciences and humanities students at Gettysburg College in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The Consent of the Governed's theme music was written by Natalie Dolan and James Lamb. Thanks to Professor Beth Campbell Hetrick, who is the faculty advisor for this project. You can find us on Podbean, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, and Medium.

In the third episode of The Consent of the Governed, “A Workable Standard,” host Carter Hanson discusses the Hofeller files, statistical outlier analysis, and begins looking at Rucho v. Common Cause, the most recent important gerrymandering Supreme Court case. From the episode: “Statistical outlier analyses of North Carolina, similar to that of Pennsylvania, reveal extreme Republican gerrymanders. In 2014, mathematicians Jonathan Mattingly and Christy Vaughn published one such analysis, revealing that, in a sampling of 100 maps in their ensemble, in no map did Democrats receive 4 or less of North Carolina's 13 congressional seats, and Democrats averaged 7.6 Democratic seats. At the time, Democrats held only 3 congressional seats in the state.” The Consent of the Governed is hosted, produced, and written by Carter Hanson, from his home in Boulder, Colorado. The Consent of the Governed is the main expression of my Kolbe Fellowship project. The Kolbe Fellowship program is a ten-week research fellowship for social sciences and humanities students at Gettysburg College in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The Consent of the Governed's theme music was written by Natalie Dolan and James Lamb. Thanks to Professor Beth Campbell Hetrick, who is the faculty advisor for this project. You can find us on Podbean, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, and Medium.

In the wake of the US Supreme Court's Common Cause v. Rucho case which ruled that gerrymandering cases are a non-justiciable issue, citizen grassroots efforts have emerged to use other means to prevent partisan gerrymandering and other voter suppression efforts. These locally organized efforts have led to initiative petition victories to create non-partisan redistricting commissions in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Utah, expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act in Idaho, and restored voting rights for former felons in Florida and Alabama. Our guest on this edition of StudioTulsa is journalist David Daley, a senior fellow at Fair Vote, who writes about these efforts in his latest book, "Unrigged: How Americans Are Battling Back to Save Democracy."

The USA was founded in pursuit of a more perfect union. In the Elections Clause (Art I, Section 4) and several amendments (XIV, XV, XVII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI), the Constitution enshrines, explicitly or implicitly, the right to vote — a political and legal journey that continues to be challenging and complex. Though the American republic is certainly more democratic than it once was, issues such as voter ID laws, voter registration purges, and partisan gerrymandering have raised concerns about electoral fraud and discrimination against minorities. Recent Supreme Court decisions — Shelby County v. Holder (2013) and Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) — have failed to address key questions. How do states balance the integrity of elections and the individual right to vote? What role does the federal government have in preserving democracy throughout the USA?

This week's episode breaks down the 357-page state court gerrymandering decision in North Carolina striking down that state's legislative districts. We explain in depth exactly what happened -- and exactly why cases like there are the future for political gerrymandering claims in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Rucho v. Common Cause. We begin, however, with a couple of Andrew Was Wrong segments, including a sad update on Gavin Grimm as well as feedback from the entire state of Idaho! Then, it's time for a deep dive into the recent ruling in North Carolina, which includes an analysis of both the facts -- featuring "Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites" Dr. Evil stand-in Thomas Hofeller -- and the law. If political gerrymandering is now perfectly okay by the U.S. Supreme Court, what can we do? Listen and find out! After that, it's time for a brief Yodel Mountain update regarding Don McGahn, as well as a Jeffrey Epstein update. And then it's time for #T3BE on the formation of contract: when, exactly, does a contract to buy a truck get made? You won't want to miss this one. 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 last discussed Gavin Grimm's case in Episode 306. Click here to check out the populations of the various states, including Idaho. This is the North Carolina gerrymandering opinion. -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!

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Easha are joined by guest host Melissa Murray of NYU Law and the new Strict Scrutiny podcast. They discuss the recent Supreme Court decision on gerrymandering (Rucho v. Common Cause), what's next in the fight, and where you can find Melissa's wonderful new podcast.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesThe Strict Scrutiny podcast is here on Twitter.The Rucho decision is here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On June 27, the Supreme Court decided several redistricting cases in Rucho et al. v. Common Cause et al. The decision was 5-4, with the majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts. In it, he writes that "excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust." However, this does not mean "the solution lies with the federal judiciary. We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." Justice Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, opening by saying "For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities."Featuring: Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University School of LawHans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On June 27, the Supreme Court decided several redistricting cases in Rucho et al. v. Common Cause et al. The decision was 5-4, with the majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts. In it, he writes that "excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust." However, this does not mean "the solution lies with the federal judiciary. We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts." Justice Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, opening by saying "For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities."Featuring: Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University School of LawHans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On June 28, SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein and Sarah Harrington participated in a webinar discussing the major cases at the Supreme Court this term. The discussion, moderated by Laura Safdie from Casetext, covered Department of Commerce v. New York, holding that a question about citizenship cannot be added to 2020 census until the Commerce Department provides an adequate explanation for doing so, Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, holding that partisan-gerrymandering claims present political questions that cannot be reviewed by federal courts, and other cases. Video of the webinar is available at this link. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 term will soon be over, but the need for serious analysis has just begun. Did the High Court get the big cases right? What will the Court’s ruling in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association mean for the future of religion in the public square? How will Rucho v. Common Cause and Benisek v. Lamone, the partisan gerrymandering cases, impact the next election cycle? Will the ruling in Kisor v. Wilkie rein in administrative agencies? How have Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh changed the balance of the Court, and have any broader themes of the Roberts Court emerged this term?Please join us as our distinguished panels of practitioners and journalists discuss these cases and more from the 2018-2019 term. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

North Carolina has been dealing with the Leandro school funding lawsuit for 25 years. But recent developments suggest a resolution to the long-running case could be in sight. Terry Stoops, John Locke Foundation vice president for research and director of education studies, analyzes the latest recommendations and courtroom developments in the Leandro dispute. Some state lawmakers want to give survivors of childhood sexual abuse more time to take their alleged abusers to civil court. You’ll hear highlights from a recent N.C. House debate over a bill that would allow an adult as old as 38 to file suit in a child sexual abuse case. One N.C. congressman used a recent U.S. House debate to draw attention to the boycott, divestment, and sanctions — or BDS — movement against Israel. Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-10th District, asked colleagues to support an amendment to take action against those who support the movement. You’ll hear his argument. One of the most contentious debates in the N.C. General Assembly this year involves fishing. Sponsors of a bill dubbed “let them spawn” want to set new size restrictions for certain fish caught in N.C. waters. Opponents contend the measure would kill the state’s commercial fishing sector. You’ll hear arguments from both sides. The U.S. Supreme Court has closed the door on partisan gerrymandering cases with a 5-4 decision in North Carolina’s Rucho v. Common Cause case. That means the state will not be forced to redraw election districts for 2020 congressional elections. But a similar legal dispute in state court still could affect the future of N.C. House and Senate election maps.

This week's episode covers the two political cases that highlighted the last day of the term, as Nazim gets indignant about the death of political gerrymanddering cases in Rucho v Common Cause, Brett recounts his China trip, and Roberts sits alone at the lunch table in Department of Commerce v. New York.  The law starts at (2:45).

Forgot the names of all 23 Democratic candidates? Don’t worry, we did too. The hosts reveal the disgusting bodies of water they’ve dropped their phones in AND THEN CONTINUED USING THEM. We highlight a few of this summer’s SCOTUS rulings: Flowers v Mississippi, Dept. of Commerce v New York, and Rucho v Common Cause. Mueller will testify on July 17th, and there are mixed interpretations amongst the hosts about how effective his testimony will be. Remember those ugly ass LuLaRoe leggings your friend from college was selling on Facebook a couple of years ago? Surprise surprise, it was a pyramid scheme. Why are people still falling for these? We cover the latest Taylor Swift drama, and talk about what it means for her to have the entire body of her life’s work owned by someone who bullied her for years. Twitter is finally (sort of) enforcing its Terms of Use, and we’re looking forward to seeing that “big, beautiful” grey wall blocking all of Trump’s tweets. The quarterly numbers are coming in, and Q2 is looking great for Buttigieg with $24.8 million raised. Surprise Bitch! caller Anisha is moving from Manhattan to Brooklyn like all the other cool kids, and this inspires some NYC reminiscence from the panel. In this week’s recommendations, we have vibration absorption pads for your vibrating appliances (Andrew), ThredUP for gently used, second-hand clothing (Laura), and One Day At A Time in honor of it being saved by Pop TV (Pam). And in this week’s installment of After Dark: We had some additional news stories we really wanted to dive into! But first, Andrew reveals the salacious tale behind this week’s show recommendation. Andrew shares another rage of the week, this time directed at Netflix for literally spoiling the entire third season of Stranger Things. The birther movement is unfortunately alive and well, and now it’s coming for Kamala Harris. Star Wars fans are getting thirsty: Disney’s big problem with fans stealing items from the Galaxy’s Edge attraction.

The Supreme Court's conservative justices ruled Thursday that the highest court doesn't have the power to address partisan gerrymandering, the practice in which politicians redraw district maps to help their own party win more elections. In two cases, Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause, the court split along ideological lines 5 to 4. Chief Justice John G.

No help from the courts on partisan gerrymandering.

The Supreme Court could rule on a North Carolina partisan gerrymandering case that could have big implications for the country, a concerned resident of Carolina Beach thinks the new trend in female bathing suits is indecent and the police need to do something about it, Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, discusses the upcoming ruling on the North Carolina partisan Gerrymandering case Rucho v Common Cause and what a ruling affirming Common Causes' stance could do for the future elections in this country

A case in which the Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.

A case in which the Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.

Today's rapid response episode breaks down the latest decisions from the Roberts court, including the ostensible "win" in Dep't of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case), and the crushing loss in Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering cases). Oh, and along the way we'll also discuss the opioid crisis and the news that Robert Mueller will testify before the House Judiciary Committee. It's going to be a long and wild ride, so strap in! We begin by taking a quick trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss the significance and substance of the Congressional subpoena issued to Robert Mueller. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! Then, it's time to break down the theory and developments in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816, the case that's at the forefront of the efforts to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for their role in causing the opioid crisis in this country. Find out what a "public nuisance" is, whether manufacturing and selling opioids is one, why this case is important, and much, much more! After all that, it's time for the main event: breaking down the Supreme Court's decisions in Ross and Rucho. Find out why Andrew thinks that John Roberts wrote the Ross opinion going the other way until the evidence broke regarding Thomas Hofeller, and how that means the entirety of the new game is: Shame Justice Roberts. (Oh, and also you'll learn along the way that our democracy is screwed.) After all that, it's time for an all-new, all-awesome Thomas Takes The Bar Exam about strict liability and de-fanged venomous snakes. What madness transpires? Listen and find out, and then play along with #TTTBE on social media! Appearances Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links You can read the Court's opinion in Dep't of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case) as well as Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering case). Click here to read the Complaint in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816. Finally, you can check out the Los Angeles Times article on Purdue Pharma we referenced on the show as well as click here for more information on the MDL litigation pending before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster. -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!

On March 26, 2019, the Supreme Court heard argument in Rucho v. Common Cause and Benisek v. Lamone, two cases involving gerrymandering.Rucho v. Common Cause involves whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map involves unconstitutional gerrymandering in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and Article I. In March 2017, a three-judge district court ruled that North Carolina’s 2016 Congressional Redistricting Plan constituted unconstitutional gerrymandering because the state General Assembly improperly relied on “political data” to draw districts to increase the number of Republicans in North Carolina’s congressional delegation. The court ordered new maps to be drawn for use in future elections. Following the court’s instructions, the General Assembly drew a new congressional district plan according to criteria identified by the Joint Select Committee on Redistricting. One such criterion was “partisan advantage,” which, relying on population data and political data, would “make reasonable efforts to construct districts in the 2016 plan to maintain current partisan makeup of North Carolina’s congressional delegation.” The plan was approved by the committee, the North Carolina Senate and North Carolina House of Representatives, all along party lines. Others filed objections to the plan and asked that the court reject it as partisan gerrymandering. The court held that the plan constituted unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, enjoined North Carolina from using the plan in any election after November 6, 2018, and directed the parties to submit briefs relating to whether the court should allow the plan to be used in the 2018 election and allow the General Assembly a third opportunity to draw a plan. Although the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the district court judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its 2018 decision in Gil v. Whitford on standing, the district court subsequently concluded that the plaintiffs had standing and reasserted its earlier determination on the merits. In August 2018, the district court concluded that there was not enough time to review a new plan before the seating of the new Congress in 2019 as well as determined that a new schedule for elections would interfere with North Carolina’s electoral machinery. Thus, the court declined to enjoin use of the plan in the November 2018 election. The Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to consider (1) whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Lamone v. Benisek involves Maryland’s 2011 redistricting plan, particularly whether the State redrew the boundary of one district to burden Republicans. Following the 2010 census, Maryland redrew the lines of its congressional districts and state legislative districts. The Sixth Congressional District had grown by approximately 10,000 residents, which required adjustment of the district boundaries. If only a slight adjustment for population had been applied, the district would have been unquestionably Republican. Instead of this slight adjustment, the plan swapped half the population of the former Sixth District with about 24,000 voters. The change created in effect a difference in 90,000 Democratic votes. Plaintiffs argued that in enacting 2011 law, the State deliberately diluted Republican votes in violation of the First Amendment. A three-judge district court agreed with plaintiffs, enjoining the State from using the 2011 congressional redistricting plan after the 2018 congressional election and requiring it promptly to adopt a new plan for use in the 2020 congressional elections. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.To discuss the cases, we have Derek Muller, Associate Professor at Pepperdine University School of Law.

On March 26, 2019, the Supreme Court heard argument in Rucho v. Common Cause and Benisek v. Lamone, two cases involving gerrymandering.Rucho v. Common Cause involves whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map involves unconstitutional gerrymandering in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and Article I. In March 2017, a three-judge district court ruled that North Carolina’s 2016 Congressional Redistricting Plan constituted unconstitutional gerrymandering because the state General Assembly improperly relied on “political data” to draw districts to increase the number of Republicans in North Carolina’s congressional delegation. The court ordered new maps to be drawn for use in future elections. Following the court’s instructions, the General Assembly drew a new congressional district plan according to criteria identified by the Joint Select Committee on Redistricting. One such criterion was “partisan advantage,” which, relying on population data and political data, would “make reasonable efforts to construct districts in the 2016 plan to maintain current partisan makeup of North Carolina’s congressional delegation.” The plan was approved by the committee, the North Carolina Senate and North Carolina House of Representatives, all along party lines. Others filed objections to the plan and asked that the court reject it as partisan gerrymandering. The court held that the plan constituted unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering, enjoined North Carolina from using the plan in any election after November 6, 2018, and directed the parties to submit briefs relating to whether the court should allow the plan to be used in the 2018 election and allow the General Assembly a third opportunity to draw a plan. Although the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the district court judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its 2018 decision in Gil v. Whitford on standing, the district court subsequently concluded that the plaintiffs had standing and reasserted its earlier determination on the merits. In August 2018, the district court concluded that there was not enough time to review a new plan before the seating of the new Congress in 2019 as well as determined that a new schedule for elections would interfere with North Carolina’s electoral machinery. Thus, the court declined to enjoin use of the plan in the November 2018 election. The Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to consider (1) whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Lamone v. Benisek involves Maryland’s 2011 redistricting plan, particularly whether the State redrew the boundary of one district to burden Republicans. Following the 2010 census, Maryland redrew the lines of its congressional districts and state legislative districts. The Sixth Congressional District had grown by approximately 10,000 residents, which required adjustment of the district boundaries. If only a slight adjustment for population had been applied, the district would have been unquestionably Republican. Instead of this slight adjustment, the plan swapped half the population of the former Sixth District with about 24,000 voters. The change created in effect a difference in 90,000 Democratic votes. Plaintiffs argued that in enacting 2011 law, the State deliberately diluted Republican votes in violation of the First Amendment. A three-judge district court agreed with plaintiffs, enjoining the State from using the 2011 congressional redistricting plan after the 2018 congressional election and requiring it promptly to adopt a new plan for use in the 2020 congressional elections. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.To discuss the cases, we have Derek Muller, Associate Professor at Pepperdine University School of Law.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court and Tom Goldstein take a look at what’s ahead at the Supreme Court for the final weeks of June. The justices have 24 argued cases still to decide, including a number of the more high-profile cases from this year’s docket: Gundy v. United States, The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, Department of Commerce v. New York, and partisan-gerrymandering cases Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Supreme Court heard two partisan gerrymandering cases—one from North Carolina and another from Maryland—this week: Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause. Examining those cases and how the Court might rule, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Nick Stephanopoulos, one of the attorneys in the North Carolina case and a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation. These scholars debate whether or not the Supreme Court should be involved in examining partisan gerrymandering claims, and discuss what the Constitution says about gerrymandering. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court heard two partisan gerrymandering cases—one from North Carolina and another from Maryland—this week: Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause. Examining those cases and how the Court might rule, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Nick Stephanopoulos, one of the attorneys in the North Carolina case and a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation. These scholars debate whether or not the Supreme Court should be involved in examining partisan gerrymandering claims, and discuss what the Constitution says about gerrymandering. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Rucho v. Common Cause | 03/26/19 | Docket #: 18-422

AKA THIS AGAIN.  This week's episode takes a dive into the last four years of gerrymandering cases to suss out what the Court is talking about in the current cases of Virginia v. Bethune-Hill (2019), Lamone v. Benisk, and Rucho v. Common Cause.  Come for the nuanced political discussion, stay to hear how beaten-down Nazim is on this issue compared to four years ago.  Law starts at (07:20).

This Term, the Supreme Court will once again tackle the issue of partisan redistricting when it reviews two cases to determine whether state legislatures violated the Constitution by intentionally diluting their citizens' votes for partisan purposes. Last Term, the Court heard two cases on the topic, but never reached the merits. Instead, it decided the cases on jurisdictional grounds.With those issues arguably resolved, the Court now seems ready to weigh in on whether partisan gerrymandering cases are justiciable when it hears Benisek v. Lamone, a challenge to the electoral map drawn by the Democratically-controlled Maryland legislature, and Rucho v. Common Cause, a challenge to the electoral map drawn by the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature, on March 26, 2019. What test might the Court adopt for determining when redistricting is legitimate or illegitimate, and what are the implications of the various possibilities? How is the Supreme Court, now without Justice Kennedy, likely to rule on the merits? Featured Speakers: Kareem Crayton, Interim Executive Director, Southern Coalition for Social Justice Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School Jenni Katzman, moderator, Director of Policy and Program, ACS

In 2016, a North Carolina legislator announced that his party would be redrawing the state’s congressional district map with a particular goal in mind: To elect “10 Republicans and three Democrats.” His reasoning for this? As he explained, he did “not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.” It was a blatant admission of gerrymandering in a state already known for creatively-drawn districts. But that might be about to change. A North Carolina mathematician has come up with a way to quantify just how rigged a map is. And now he’s taking his math to court, in a case that could end up redrawing district lines across the country.   Braxton Brewington (center) preparing to make a statement outside the District Court on the first day of Common Cause's trial. (Courtesy of Braxton Brewington)   A&T Aggies at "Roll to the Polls" last April. (Courtesy of Braxton Brewington)   Jonathan Mattingly at Duke last June. (Annie Minoff)   Guests Jonathan Mattingly, professor of mathematics and statistical science, Duke University Braxton Brewington, undergraduate senior, North Carolina A&T State University, senior democracy fellow, Common Cause North Carolina Bob Phillips, executive director, Common Cause North Carolina   Footnotes Read about Jonathan and his students’ analyses of North Carolina’s 2012 and 2016 congressional maps (and check out the rest of their work on gerrymandering) See North Carolina’s congressional map, which a federal court declared unconstitutional in 2018 Read the District Court’s opinions from January 2018, declaring North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map unconstitutional Watch Representative David Lewis make his comments before the state legislature's joint select committee on congressional redistricting Read about the history of Common Cause’s lawsuit: Common Cause v. Rucho Read about other partisan gerrymandering court challenges Read about Common Cause v. Rucho’s prospects at the Supreme Court   Credits This episode of Undiscovered was produced by Elah Feder and Annie Minoff  Our senior editor is Christopher Intagliata, our composer is Daniel Peterschmidt, and our intern is Kaitlyn Schwalje. Our theme music is by I Am Robot And Proud. We had fact checking help from Robin Palmer. Eddie Garcia was our reporter on-the-ground at A&T.   Special thanks this week to Thomas Wolf and the Brennan Center for Justice, Justin Levitt, Gregory Herschlag, and Jonathan Mattingly’s Data+ team.      

In 2016, a North Carolina legislator announced that his party would be redrawing the state’s congressional district map with a particular goal in mind: To elect “10 Republicans and three Democrats.” His reasoning for this? As he explained, he did “not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.” It was a blatant admission of gerrymandering in a state already known for creatively-drawn districts. But that might be about to change. A North Carolina mathematician has come up with a way to quantify just how rigged a map is. And now he’s taking his math to court, in a case that could end up redrawing district lines across the country.   Braxton Brewington (center) preparing to make a statement outside the District Court on the first day of Common Cause's trial. (Courtesy of Braxton Brewington)   A&T Aggies at "Roll to the Polls" last April. (Courtesy of Braxton Brewington)   Jonathan Mattingly at Duke last June. (Annie Minoff)   Guests Jonathan Mattingly, professor of mathematics and statistical science, Duke University Braxton Brewington, undergraduate senior, North Carolina A&T State University, senior democracy fellow, Common Cause North Carolina Bob Phillips, executive director, Common Cause North Carolina   Footnotes Read about Jonathan and his students’ analyses of North Carolina’s 2012 and 2016 congressional maps (and check out the rest of their work on gerrymandering) See North Carolina’s congressional map, which a federal court declared unconstitutional in 2018 Read the District Court’s opinions from January 2018, declaring North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map unconstitutional Watch Representative David Lewis make his comments before the state legislature's joint select committee on congressional redistricting Read about the history of Common Cause’s lawsuit: Common Cause v. Rucho Read about other partisan gerrymandering court challenges Read about Common Cause v. Rucho’s prospects at the Supreme Court   Credits This episode of Undiscovered was produced by Elah Feder and Annie Minoff  Our senior editor is Christopher Intagliata, our composer is Daniel Peterschmidt, and our intern is Kaitlyn Schwalje. Our theme music is by I Am Robot And Proud. We had fact checking help from Robin Palmer. Eddie Garcia was our reporter on-the-ground at A&T.   Special thanks this week to Thomas Wolf and the Brennan Center for Justice, Justin Levitt, Gregory Herschlag, and Jonathan Mattingly’s Data+ team.