Podcast appearances and mentions of Samuel Alito

Share on
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Reddit
Share on LinkedIn
Copy link to clipboard

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

  • 615PODCASTS
  • 1,261EPISODES
  • 42mAVG DURATION
  • 6DAILY NEW EPISODES
  • Jun 28, 2022LATEST
Samuel Alito

POPULARITY

20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022


Best podcasts about Samuel Alito

Show all podcasts related to samuel alito

Latest podcast episodes about Samuel Alito

Astillero Informa con Julio Astillero
Astillero y Buentello | ¡Martes negro para Alito!

Astillero Informa con Julio Astillero

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2022 7:12


Julio Hernández “Astillero” y Adriana Buentello dialogan sobre la polémica iniciativa de reforma anunciada por el presidente del PRI, Alejandro Moreno, para flexibilizar el otorgamiento de permisos a los ciudadanos para poseer armas y protegerse de la inseguridad.Link para hacer donaciones vía PayPal:https://www.paypal.me/julioastilleroCuenta para hacer transferencias a cuenta BBVA a nombre de Julio Hernández López: 1539408017CLABE: 012 320 01539408017 2 See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Using the Whole Whale Podcast
Roe v. Wade Repeal Upends Nearly 50 Years Of Constitutional Abortion Protection (news)

Using the Whole Whale Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2022 22:51


  Roe v. Wade Repeal Upends Nearly 50 Years Of Constitutional Abortion Protection; Access To Abortions Enters Into State-By-State Public Policy Frenzy Nearly 50 years of the constitutionally-upheld right to abortion access came to an end on Friday with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. The decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito with additional concurring opinions by conservative justices including Clarence Thomas, immediately ended federal protection for a woman's right to abortion. The right to abortion  is now a legal question left entirely up to the states, reflecting a public policy landscape upended into chaos. The legal landscape of abortion access across America is complex, with some states that have trigger laws that instantly banned abortion with this decision, and others have dormant laws that have suddenly become viable. The decision comes despite Pew Research polling suggesting that 61% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. In addition to partisan and religious divides, among the most salient demographic determinants of American's feelings on abortion stem from respondants' age, with young people under 29 indicating 74% in favor of abortion legality in all or most cases. Read more ➝   Summary: Biden signs gun safety bill into law : NPR | NPR.org  The New Humanitarian | Ukraine aid response shifts gears for the long haul | The New Humanitarian Health Care Debt In The U.S.: The Broad Consequences Of Medical And Dental Bills – Main Findings – 9957 | KFF

Make Out Already
A Man Who Knows How to Turn Our Pages: "Book Lovers" by Emily Henry

Make Out Already

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2022 71:47


Hi Smooches. This episode is chaotic. We spend the first 10 minutes or so talking about SCOTUS, so if you need to skip it for mental health reasons, we don't blame you. After we pour ourselves some daytime cocktails, we recap Book Lovers by Emily Henry. If you've listened to our episodes on Beach Read and People We Meet on Vacation, you can already guess that we loved this book. Spoilers ahead. Please donate to an abortion fund and support the critical infrastructure that helps people access reproductive care. And in the words of our prophet Olivia Rodrigo: To the justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh. We hate you. Fuck you. Fuck you very very much. Where to find us Website: www.makeoutalreadypod.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/makeoutalreadypod/?hl=en Twitter: https://twitter.com/makeout_already TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@makeoutalreadypod Merch: https://make-out-already.creator-spring.com Liz's author socials: https://twitter.com/ellediazromance https://www.instagram.com/ellediazromance Stuff we mentioned Donate to https://abortionfunds.org/ Our Beach Read episode: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/make-out-already/id1504732910?i=1000506300391 Our People We Meet on Vacation episode: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/make-out-already/id1504732910?i=1000534542006 All hail the one true Chris https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRJQcyAM/?k=1

ANSA Voice magazine
La tendenza della settimana - La sentenza della Corte Suprema sull'aborto, perchè è una decisione generazionale (di Alessandra Magliaro)

ANSA Voice magazine

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2022 6:03


Il giudice che ha scritto per la maggioranza degli otto giudici che così hanno ribaltato il diritto costituzionale all'aborto che dal 1973 era protetto, Samuel Alito, aveva delineato una strategia metodica decenni fa con l'obiettivo specifico e ultraconservatore di cambiare lo stato di diritto. Così 50 anni dopo, giovani generazioni hanno meno diritti delle loro madri.

Legale§e
Clarence Thomas Is Right

Legale§e

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2022 14:07


Stare Decisis is a Latin phrase, commonly used in law that roughly translates to: “Let wrong decisions of the Warren Court stand” Regardless of your personal opinion in the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate , Roe v Wade was a terrible opinion bereft of even a modicum of legal merit and substantive due process is a garbage legal doctrine invented out of thin air by the Warren Court a century after the 14th amendment was ratified. The only people who could disagree with that statement are people who have never read the actual case brief for Roe v Wade and never bothered to so much as read the 14th amendment, much less earnestly try to give it a good faith interpretation. Full Case Brief - Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Today In Supreme Court History - Roe v Wade (1973) The 14th Amendment & Incorporation Doctrine Clarence Thomas was right to say as much in his concurrence in Dobbs. This is a position He (and much less importantly I) have held for many years. A careful reading of Thomas' opinion is, in many respects, less detrimental to the protection of unenumerated rights, secured by substantive due process than either Justice Alito's majority opinion and Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion. This is because he is the only one who suggests how the 14th amendment could be used in its original public meaning to secure many of the unenumerated rights that have been created with the imaginary theory of substantive due process , through the original public meaning of the 14th amendment's Privileges & Immunities Clause AMENDMENT XIV, SECTION 1 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.... In this episode we briefly discuss why Thomas is right and why those on the left who have turned into violent racist bigots over this decision are demonstrating a new low in their pursuit of political ends through mostly peaceful violence and mostly non-racist racism Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

The John Rothmann Show Podcast
John Rothmann:  The coach can pray and Roe v. Wade

The John Rothmann Show Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2022 34:47


The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a former Washington state high school football coach had a right to pray on the field immediately after games. The 6-3 ruling was a victory for Joseph Kennedy, who claimed that the Bremerton School District violated his religious freedom by telling him he couldn't pray so publicly after the games. The district said it was trying to avoid the appearance that the school was endorsing a religious point of view. The Supreme Court decision ending abortion access for millions of Americans did not come as a surprise. But having a leaked preview of Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in advance has not dulled the outrage over the end of Roe v. Wade in America. Immediately after the ruling was announced, protesters began assembling outside the Court to express their fury. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

KGO 810 Podcast
John Rothmann:  The coach can pray and Roe v. Wade

KGO 810 Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 28, 2022 34:47


The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a former Washington state high school football coach had a right to pray on the field immediately after games. The 6-3 ruling was a victory for Joseph Kennedy, who claimed that the Bremerton School District violated his religious freedom by telling him he couldn't pray so publicly after the games. The district said it was trying to avoid the appearance that the school was endorsing a religious point of view. The Supreme Court decision ending abortion access for millions of Americans did not come as a surprise. But having a leaked preview of Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in advance has not dulled the outrage over the end of Roe v. Wade in America. Immediately after the ruling was announced, protesters began assembling outside the Court to express their fury. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed
Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik: “The End of Roe v. Wade” (#156)

The Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022


In a special episode of Law Talk, professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo do a deep dive into Dobbs v. Jackson, the Supreme Court case overturning Roe v. Wade — and take listener questions while they're at it. They analyze the logic of Justice Alito's decision, the controversial concurrence of Clarence Thomas, the uncomfortable middle ground occupied by […]

The Majority Report with Sam Seder
2869 - The Right Wing SCOTUS Machine Which Will Destroy Your Rights Unless You Want A Gun w/ Khiara M. Bridges

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 88:31


Sam hosts Khiara M. Bridges, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, to discuss the recent overturning of Roe V. Wade and the repeal of concealed carry laws in New York State by the Supreme Court. First Sam reviews the standards set by this 6-3 conservative Supreme Court, overturning Roe and concealed carry laws while promoting single-religion prayer in public school, and the unsurprising result of an already unpopular court having it's approval ratings go into free fall, before covering MSNBC accidentally stumbling into Reproductive Rights activists that actually know the history of reproductive rights and the Democrats' fight (or lack thereof) for it. Then, he is joined by Professor Khiara Bridges as she dives into the actual state of the Dobbs decision, the difference between Alito's opinion to overturn Roe and Roberts' concurrence which saught to only address the ACTUAL question of the case on the viability line, and why the concepts the Court was addressing changed with the replacement of RBG with ACB. Next, they get into the role of the “Due Process” clause of the 14th Amendment, exploring how the leak went after this concept much more aggressively than the actual opinion and walking through the other elements of this Reconstruction amendment, and how this attempt to undermine the clause is still central to the opinion, just obscured in qualifier about what THIS case is doing, before Professor Bridges dives into the 9th Amendment and the legal establishment's refusal (from academia to the courts) to actually acknowledge the idea of rights of the public not previously enumerated in the Constitution. The professor then walks Sam through how the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause has been interpreted as a right to privacy, via reason and logic, by previous courts dating back to the start of the 20th Century, and dives into the arbitrary algorithm set up by this Court to reject “new” rights on a case by case basis, wrapping up by exploring this algorithm's contrary implementation in the Bruen decision. And in the Fun Half: Sam admires Tulsi Gabbard's empathy and commitment to rationality by refusing to respond to the Roe decision (which definitely has nothing to do with her move to conservatism), Kristi Noem reminds us that every life is precious, unless that life could produce a white dude, and the LAPD finally get back to their roots of ruthlessly beating nonviolent protesters and journalists alike. SCOTUS shows us we have nothing to fear from their future by shooting tear gas from their roof, Chuck Todd gets awkward when AOC brings up holding justices accountable for their actions and statements, and Ronald Raygun reflects back on the Trump Cuck Rushmore with our recent 1/6 revelations. Rudy claims he was struck by a boulder only for video evidence to show who the real Sisy-phus is, James from CO calls in about a libertarian track to home ownership, plus, your calls and IMs!   Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here:  https://madmimi.com/signups/170390/join Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Check out today's sponsors: Check out JustCoffee and get 25% off with the code MR25! https://justcoffee.coop/ sunsetlakecbd is a majority employee owned farm in Vermont, producing 100% pesticide free CBD products. Great company, great product and fans of the show! Use code Leftisbest and get 20% off at http://www.sunsetlakecbd.com. And now Sunset Lake CBD has donated $2500 to the Nurses strike fund, and we encourage MR listeners to help if they can. Here's a link to where folks can donate: https://forms.massnurses.org/we-stand-with-st-vincents-nurses/ Support the St. Vincent Nurses today! https://action.massnurses.org/we-stand-with-st-vincents-nurses/ Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Matt's other show Literary Hangover on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/literaryhangover Check out The Nomiki Show on YouTube. https://www.patreon.com/thenomikishow Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out The Letterhack's upcoming Kickstarter project for his new graphic novel! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/milagrocomic/milagro-heroe-de-las-calles Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Subscribe to AM Quickie writer Corey Pein's podcast News from Nowhere. https://www.patreon.com/newsfromnowhere  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out AidAccess here: https://aidaccess.org/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Stone Mountain Media
Roe is Dead in White Boy Summer

Stone Mountain Media

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 88:16


Roe is no more. The written opinions of Alito and Thomas are read and some brief comments on “what's next?”

Background Briefing with Ian Masters
June 27, 2022 - Gloria Browne-Marshall | Scott Horton | Casey Michel

Background Briefing with Ian Masters

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 62:28


Alito's "Victory for White Life" and the Freakout on the White Right | The Case So Far Presented by the House Select Committee | How American Think Tanks do the Bidding of Their Foreign Patrons backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

Midday
Special Coverage: More Reactions to High Court's Ruling on Abortion

Midday

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 48:36


Today on Midday, we continue WYPR's Special Coverage of the historic Supreme Court ruling overturning 50 years of constitutional protections for abortion rights. Writing for the High Court majority that overturned Roe v Wade in a 6-3 decision announced Friday, Justice Samuel Alito said that the decision “returns the authority to regulate abortion to the people” meaning states can decide whether or not abortions will be allowed. A poll released this morning by PBS shows 56% of Americans oppose the ruling. In his noon-hour remarks from the White House on Friday, President Biden said the only way to restore abortion rights is to codify the provisions of Roe into law. The current Congress will not make that happen. Here in Maryland, women will have access to abortion, but Governor Larry Hogan is refusing to release money approved by the legislature to expand the number of people who can perform abortions. Initially, the General Assembly wrote the law so that training would begin in July of 2023. A new urgency has arisen to begin training these providers because of the SCOTUS decision, and legislators want to start next month instead of next year, but the Governor isn't budging. Among Tom's guests today are Baltimore City Councilwoman Phylicia Porter, who represents the 10th District in South Baltimore; Professor Mary Fissell, a medical historian at Johns Hopkins University; and Miriam Burg, a Rabbi and Jewish educator who works with pregnant women. We were told that Catholic Archbishop William Lori would be able to join us today as well, but this morning, his spokesperson said he would not be available. We hope to have him on at another time. But we begin with Karen J. Nelson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, a major provider of reproductive health services across the state. Like our other guests, Ms. Nelson joins us on Zoom… See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik
“The End of Roe v. Wade”

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 60:24


In a special episode of Law Talk, professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo do a deep dive into Dobbs v. Jackson, the Supreme Court case overturning Roe v. Wade — and take listener questions while they're at it. They analyze the logic of Justice Alito's decision, the controversial concurrence of Clarence Thomas, the uncomfortable middle ground occupied by Chief Justice Roberts, and the blistering dissent from the Court's liberal justices. Plus, what's next: can Congress write Roe back into law — or, conversely, impose nationwide abortion restrictions? Can states limit the ability of citizens to cross state lines in pursuit of an abortion? All that, plus a brief look at the Court's noteworthy gun rights case out of New York and the professors' answer to the question: what's this year's most important Supreme Court case that no one is talking about?

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik
“The End of Roe v. Wade”

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 60:24


In a special episode of Law Talk, professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo do a deep dive into Dobbs v. Jackson, the Supreme Court case overturning Roe v. Wade — and take listener questions while they're at it. They analyze the logic of Justice Alito's decision, the controversial concurrence of Clarence Thomas, the uncomfortable middle ground occupied by Chief Justice Roberts, and the blistering dissent from the Court's liberal justices. Plus, what's next: can Congress write Roe back into law — or, conversely, impose nationwide abortion restrictions? Can states limit the ability of citizens to cross state lines in pursuit of an abortion? All that, plus a brief look at the Court's noteworthy gun rights case out of New York and the professors' answer to the question: what's this year's most important Supreme Court case that no one is talking about?

The Prepper Broadcasting Network
Matter of Facts: A Love Letter to Justices Thomas and Alito

The Prepper Broadcasting Network

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 31:34


http://www.mofpodcast.com/https://prepperbroadcasting.com/https://www.facebook.com/matteroffactspodcast/https://www.facebook.com/groups/mofpodcastgroup/www.youtube.com/user/philrabhttps://www.instagram.com/mofpodcastSupport the showShop at Amazon: http://amzn.to/2ora9riPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/mofpodcastPurchase American Insurgent by Phil Rabalais: https://amzn.to/2FvSLMLShop at MantisX: http://www.mantisx.com/ref?id=173*The views and opinions of guests do not reflect the opinions of Phil Rabalais, Andrew Bobo, or the Matter of Facts Podcast*Phil and Andrew take a moment to celebrate the recent SCOTUS opinions in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Agree or disagree, let us know if this is a 2A victory or big nothing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdfIntro and Outro Music by Phil RabalaisAll rights reserved, no commercial or non-commercial use without permission of creator

Matter of Facts
Episode 27: A Love Letter to Justices Thomas and Alito

Matter of Facts

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 31:33


http://www.mofpodcast.com/https://prepperbroadcasting.com/https://www.facebook.com/matteroffactspodcast/https://www.facebook.com/groups/mofpodcastgroup/www.youtube.com/user/philrabhttps://www.instagram.com/mofpodcastSupport the showShop at Amazon: http://amzn.to/2ora9riPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/mofpodcastPurchase American Insurgent by Phil Rabalais: https://amzn.to/2FvSLMLShop at MantisX: http://www.mantisx.com/ref?id=173*The views and opinions of guests do not reflect the opinions of Phil Rabalais, Andrew Bobo, or the Matter of Facts Podcast*Phil and Andrew take a moment to celebrate the recent SCOTUS opinions in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Agree or disagree, let us know if this is a 2A victory or big nothing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdfIntro and Outro Music by Phil RabalaisAll rights reserved, no commercial or non-commercial use without permission of creator

Let's Pod This
The Gardens of Democracy

Let's Pod This

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 11:42


If you're a regular listener of this program,  you may have noticed that we didn't publish an episode last week. As I'm sure you are all aware, on the day that we usually record, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that overturned Roe vs Wade and effectively ended Americans' right to abortion in more than half of the country, including here in Oklahoma. If you want to learn more about the specifics of Oklahoma's abortion laws, including the four that were added this year, listen to episode 210, called “Why so many abortion bans?”  which was published just a few weeks ago, on May 29th. It features an interview with Tamya Cox-Toure, who is the executive director of ACLU Oklahoma and co-chair of the Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice.  While this Supreme Court ruling was expected because the decision was leaked a few months ago, the reality of it actually happening has left millions of people feeling heavier, angrier, and more despondent than I think we anticipated. The ruling is unequivocally harmful to every person who can become pregnant and to our society at large. American women, including my daughters, are now growing up in a world where they have more risk and fewer rights than did their mothers and grandmothers.  This ruling will have a disproportionate impact on black and brown communities and people who are in poverty. Abortion is still legal in many states, but that doesn't mean it is accessible. Thousands of people who will need abortions are now unable to get one.  In addition to its overt harm, this ruling is remarkable for a number of reasons - the contemputous tone taken by the author, Justice Samuel Alito, for example. Also the fact that several members of the court have been credibly accused of sexual harrassment and were appointed by a president who was also credibly accussed of sexual assault. Or that nearly all the justices, when asked during their Senate confirmation hearings if they would overturn Roe v Wade, stated that they would not, agreeing that Roe was settled precedent. And yet, here we are. And then there is the concurring opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, which openly advocates for the overturning of the precedent set by three other Supreme Court cases - Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell - which provide protections for access to birth control, consensual sex, and same-sex marriage, respectively. Justice Thomas is regarded as one of (if not the) most conservative justices on the bench, and these type of comments should give all Americans reason for serious concern. This kind of approach, often called “orginialist” or "textualist,” is dangerous to the American way of life because it implies that every right and privilege that is conveyed to us by legal precedent but not specifically outlined in the Constitution is now at risk. There is a lot of prededecent that all of us take for granted because  it has been settled for years or even decades.  Abortion isn't just a partisan issue, it's a power issue. People of all political affiliations need and receive abortions every year. The issue is about who has the power over women. Who gets to make decisions about their health needs, about what happens to their bodies, about their freedom and independence and autonomy.  The people opposed to abortion have been very open that this fight is not about science or reason, it is about values. Public policy is rooted in values, and sometimes  values cut across partisan lines in ways we don't expect. But we don't usually talk about our values with one another, we usually just talk about policy. Why is that? To explain, I'm going to borrow (and extend) an analogy from my friend Eric Liu, founder and CEO of Citizen University and the author of several books, including “The Gardens of Democracy.”  Consider our democracy to be a garden. Our values are the soil and policy are the flowers and fruit that grow from that soil. We...

Rising
Clarence Thomas Hints At Targeting Contraception, Gay Marriage Next, SCOTUS Releases Three More Bombshell Decisions, And More: Rising 6.27.22

Rising

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 103:40


Today on Rising, Biden Admin worried over 'EXTREME' Clarence Thomas as he targets CONTRACEPTION, other rights (00:00)Even if you don't care about abortion rights, SCOTUS is coming for YOU next: Olayemi Olurin (10:50)Biden's WAR ON MEN? Title IX changes will EVISCERATE due process on campuses: Robby Soave (26:09)Dems BEG for campaign donations after Roe decision, but have their voters had ENOUGH? (38:46)Rudy Giuliani SLAPPED by supermarket employee: Police (53:10)Dems FAILED their voters on abortion, empowered the right: Marianne Williamson (1:01:30)Kim Iversen: My body my choice? Why you can't be pro-choice AND anti-mandate (1:12:27)BREAKING: Supreme Court upholds right to PRAYER during games in Christian coach case (1:26:38) Against Peace Deal? G7 LEADERS Out Of Step With Public On Ukraine Russia War (1:35:11)Where to tune in and follow: https://linktr.ee/risingthehillMore about Rising:Rising is a weekday morning show hosted by Ryan Grim, Kim Iversen, and Robby Soave. It breaks the mold of morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before, providing outside-of-the-beltway perspectives. The show leans into the day's political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders and outsiders alike to provide coverage not provided on cable news. It also sets the day's political agenda by breaking exclusive news with a team of scoop-driven reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the country's most important political newsmakers.

Así las cosas
Alejandro Moreno falla a la palabra, nada raro en Alito

Así las cosas

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 9:50


Miguel Ángel Osorio Chong, senador del PRI

The Steve Gruber Show
Steve Gruber, In the end the terrible decision of Roe V Wade was sent to the garbage pail of history where it belongs and not because it was about abortion

The Steve Gruber Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 11:00


Live from the No Panic Zone—I'm Steve Gruber—I am America's Voice—God Bless America—God Bless You and let's do this! This is the Steve Gruber show— And I'm here to flush out the lying politicians—the tech giants—and the babbling herd of sheep—   Here are three big things you need to know right now—   ONE— President Biden is at the G-7 summit and once again he has America's checkbook open and ready to send your tax dollars—to God only knows where—   TWO— Who was the Supreme Court leaker? Is it possible it was a conservative—who was trying to take out some of the anger early—so the decision was already known weeks in advance? Some are wondering- like me.   THREE— In the end the terrible decision of Roe V Wade was sent to the garbage pail of history where it belongs—and not because it was about abortion—or that it allowed—in fact legalized abortion across the country—BUT simply because it was a wretched decision—not based on the Constitution—or precedent or common law or much of anything—BUT rather a decision conjured up out of thin air by activist liberal justices in the glow of the late 60's and early 70's… that Judicial misdeed has been corrected—and despite all the anger—and the outrage from some—abortion is still not illegal in America—   But now it is a decision the states will make—and not something that will be dictated by the federal government—   We of course knew this was the pending decision because of the leaked draft opinion—written by Samuel Alito—and the final opinion is nearly identical—   Alito made some very important points—that were in line with comments from Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2013—   For example—Abortion was illegal in all 50 states—and more so the farther a pregnancy proceeded—   When the 14th Amendment was ratified three quarters of the states had already made it a crime— and Alito made clear why the Court had long avoided recognizing rights that were not expressly outlined in the Constitution—   He made several important clarifications—for example; Alito made clear that this decision only applies to abortion and should not be seen as a pathway to overturning any other decisions—   The theme was clear—the judicial activism of 1973—is not consistent with American jurisprudence or its history and it is not for the court to decide it's own theory on life ever—and by doing so—took the power away from the people and their elected officials—and those are clearly things the Constitution places in the hands of the people—therefore the states—   Alito concluded this way: ‘Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.'   The problem is—instead of accepting the decision of the nation's high court—the Democrats, unable to lose gracefully and regroup—to proceed with new plans to persuade voters and lawmakers—they instead threatened violence in some cases—BUT just as concerning—elected officials—in high office say they will not enforce anti-abortion laws—at all—ever—  

10 MINUTES TO LESS SUFFERING
Are Things Getting You Down?

10 MINUTES TO LESS SUFFERING

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 10:01


The most important thing to remember during challenging times is that uncertainty is our best friend. If we want our lives to get better, if we're going to make changes in the world, or if we want to achieve our dreams, it all happens in the unknown future. So no matter what you face today, don't let anyone steal your hope because, for all we know, MAYBE the best is yet to come!

La Wikly
🏳️‍🌈 Tras Roe, ¿peligran los derechos LGBTQ?

La Wikly

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 27, 2022 27:43


27 de junio | Nueva YorkLeer esta newsletter te llevará 12 minutos y 54 segundos.📬 Mantente informado con nuestras columnas de actualidad diarias. Tienes un ejemplo en este boletín que enviamos el pasado miércoles sobre la victoria de Gustavo Petro en Colombia. Puedes suscribirte a través de este enlace:No todas nadan bien. Bienvenido a La Wikly.⚖️ Una amenaza realLo importante: el Tribunal Supremo estadounidense puso fin este pasado viernes al derecho constitucional al aborto al anular un par de sentencias previas de la Corte, sacudiendo a millones de estadounidenses que creen que este es solo el primero de más retrocesos.La decisión Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health amenaza con poner peligro otros derechos reconocidos por el tribunal, incluidos aquellos que protegen las libertades que la comunidad LGBTQ ha conquistado en las últimas décadas.Contexto: el Tribunal Supremo está ahora mismo formado por seis jueces conservadores y tres progresistas, lo que desequilibra la balanza de forma trascendental y abre la veda a que la mayoría conservadora atente contra derechos que se creían asegurados.La composición actual de la Corte es algo en lo que el movimiento judicial conservador de Estados Unidos lleva luchando desde hace décadas. Emilio repasó la historia de ese proceso en un artículo para Newtral.Explícamelo: la base argumentativa de la sentencia que el Supremo publicó este viernes se puede leer en decisiones judiciales del Supremo que se remontan a mediados del siglo XX. Si ha caído el aborto, otros derechos fijados por la Corte hace años podrían estar ahora en peligro.En esta newsletter, explicamos cuál es la base argumentativa que reconoció el derecho al aborto, por qué es controvertida y qué implica que la mayoría conservadora actual del tribunal haya arremetido contra ella de forma tan contundente.📜 El quid constitucionalLa sentencia Roe v. Wade de 1973 es parte de una serie de decisiones del Supremo que interpretaban la Constitución de una forma desconocida en los primeros 100 años de historia de Estados Unidos. Y todo tiene que ver con un extracto de la Sección Primera de la Decimocuarta Enmienda de su Constitución:“Ningún estado podrá […] privar a una persona de su vida, libertad o propiedad, sin un debido proceso legal”.La Decimocuarta Enmienda es una de llamadas Enmiendas de la Reconstrucción aprobadas tras el final de la Guerra Civil que enfrentó a los Estados Confederados que defendían la Esclavitud contra la Unión que encabezaba el gobierno federal.El objetivo de la Enmienda era proteger los derechos de los antiguos esclavos. Tanto su ratificación como la interpretación que los tribunales han hecho de sus cláusulas ha sido motivo de debates constitucionales profundamente controvertidos.En particular, la llamada Cláusula del Debido Proceso que hemos detallado arriba se ha litigado de forma constante en el último siglo de historia. Y todo tiene que ver con los derechos que la cláusula garantiza en todos los estados del país, según un análisis del Constitution Center:Protecciones procesales. Por ejemplo, requieren que el estado notifique acordemente a un ciudadano si va a dejar de percibir un seguro médico público y que facilite una audiencia en la que ese ciudadano pueda argumentar por qué debe seguir recibiendo ese seguro.Derechos individuales listados en la Carta de Derechos como la libertad de expresión, la libertad de religión o la libertad de prensa.Derechos fundamentales que no están específicamente enumerados en otras partes de la Constitución, incluidos el derecho al matrimonio, el derecho al uso de anticonceptivos o, hasta este pasado viernes, el derecho al aborto.La Quinta Enmienda ya protegía esos derechos, pero solo aplicaba contra el gobierno federal, con lo que los estados podían seguir vulnerándolos tal y como ocurría con la Esclavitud. La Decimocuarta incorporaba esos derechos contra los estados.Eso incluía los derechos protegidos bajo el debido proceso sustantivo, la categoría en la que se enmarcan los derechos no enumerados en la Constitución.Y cabe señalar que la Novena Enmienda sugiere que los derechos enumerados en la Constitución no niegan “otros retenidos por el pueblo”.La base de la controversia de ese debido proceso sustantivo es que los jueces de la Corte pueden concluir que un derecho emana de la Constitución pese a que no esté específicamente mencionado en el texto. Es de ahí que algunas de las decisiones más polémica del Supremo basen parte de su argumentación en ello:En Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), la Corte anuló las prohibiciones al uso de anticonceptivos en los estados porque entendía que estaban vulnerando el derecho a la privacidad de las parejas.El Supremo determinó que ese derecho no estaba explícitamente mencionado en la Constitución, pero que podía inferirse de otros derechos como el de reunión, protegido en la Primera Enmienda; el de acuartelar soldados en tiempos de paz, protegido por la Tercera; y el de ser libre de registros irrazonables del hogar, protegido por la Cuarta.En las décadas posteriores, el Supremo también usó en parte el debido proceso sustantivo para proteger el derecho al matrimonio entre parejas interraciales (1967), el derecho a que personas no casadas usaran métodos anticonceptivos (1972), el derecho al aborto (1973), el derecho a mantener conductas sexuales íntimas (2003) y el derecho al matrimonio para parejas del mismo sexo (2015).🏛 Una corte conservadoraEl reciente fallo de Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health no solo deja de reconocer el aborto como un derecho constitucional, sino que también abre la puerta a cambios en la forma en que la Corte Suprema venía interpretando la Cláusula del Debido Proceso de la Decimocuarta Enmienda.Hasta ahora, el debido proceso sustantivo era interpretado como la garantía de protección constitucional a derechos que no necesariamente están explícitos en la Constitución o que son estrictamente procesales.En la opinión mayoritaria de la Corte, el juez Samuel Alito escribe que “nada en esta opinión debe entenderse como que pone en duda los precedentes que no tienen que ver con el aborto”. Sin embargo, el razonamiento legal que esgrime la mayoría para revocar Roe v. Wade y Planned Parenthood v. Casey podría aplicarse a otros fallos.El principal argumento de Alito es que no existe una protección constitucional explícita para el derecho al aborto, y que cualquier derecho no enumerado explícitamente en la Constitución debe estar “profundamente arraigado en la historia y tradición de esta nación” y estar “implícito en el concepto de libertad ordenada” para poder acogerse al amparo constitucional.Los requisitos de este método, que a menudo se conoce como la prueba Glucksberg por el fallo Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), impiden inferir la constitucionalidad del derecho al aborto.Ante este razonamiento, el juez Clarence Thomas advirtió en una opinión concurrente del fallo que, bajo ese razonamiento, el derecho al aborto no es el único que ha sido mal protegido. Fallos como Lawrence v. Texas (2003), que ampara constitucionalmente la libertad de personas del mismo sexo a mantener relaciones sexuales consentidas, serían susceptibles de revocación.“En casos futuros, debemos reconsiderar todos los precedentes sustantivos del debido proceso de este Tribunal, incluidos Griswold, Lawrence y Obergefell. Debido a que cualquier decisión enmarcada en el debido proceso sustantivo es “evidentemente errónea”, tenemos el deber de “corregir el error” establecido en esos precedentes”, dice un pasaje de la concurrencia de Thomas.Aunque el razonamiento del juez Thomas es mucho más extremo que el de la mayoría de los jueces, su lógica muestra que es difícil marcar el límite en los derechos que revierte este fallo cuando estos se encuentran conectados por la misma lógica de interpretación. Este es, a la vez, uno de los argumentos que esgrime la minoría liberal de la Corte, disidente del fallo.“No fue hasta Roe, argumenta la mayoría, que la gente pensó que el aborto estaba dentro de la garantía de libertad de la Constitución. Sin embargo, lo mismo podría decirse de la mayoría de los derechos que la mayoría afirma que no está manipulando. La mayoría podría escribir una opinión igual de larga mostrando, por ejemplo, que hasta mediados del siglo XX, “no había apoyo en la ley estadounidense para un derecho constitucional a obtener [anticonceptivos]”. Así que una de las dos cosas debe ser cierta. O bien la mayoría no cree realmente en su propio razonamiento. O si lo hace, todos los derechos que no tienen una historia que se remonta a mediados del siglo XIX son inseguros. O la mayor parte de la opinión de la mayoría es hipocresía, o los derechos constitucionales adicionales están bajo amenaza”, declaran en conjunto los jueces progresistas Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer y Sonia Sotomayor.🧑‍⚖️ Base de arenaDurante muchos años, el juez Anthony Kennedy fue la figura fundamental en la lucha legal por la igualdad de los homosexuales. En Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) y United States v. Windsor (2013), la Corte sostuvo que el gobierno federal debe reconocer los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo.Ambas fueron decisiones 5-4 escritas por Kennedy, como resultado de su incómoda alianza con los cuatro jueces liberales.En ese tipo de casos, cuando las opiniones están muy divididas, a menudo se asigna la redacción de la sentencia mayoritaria al juez más indeciso. Sigue la teoría de que es poco probable que dicho juez cambie su voto si puede adaptar la opinión de la mayoría a sus propios puntos de vista.El resultado es que las argumentaciones que esgrimió Kennedy para la defensa de estos derechos no son muy sólidas. Ignoran doctrinas que podrían haber fundamentado una prohibición de discriminación por motivos de orientación sexual y se centran en defender que son derechos constitucionales no enumerados amparados por la doctrina del debido proceso sustantivo.Algo que, como vimos con Roe v. Wade, deja al fallo más vulnerable a ser anulado por una mayoría conservadora dedicada.El fallo Dobbs de Alito y su confianza exclusiva en el marco de Glucksberg para determinar qué derechos no enumerados están protegidos por la Constitución puede interpretarse como una estrategia del juez a largo plazo. Es decir, podría estar usando una terminología jurídica que pueda usarse para justificar otra victoria conservadora en el futuro.A esto se suma que Alito protagonizó una de las opiniones contrarias al fallo de Obergefell que reconocía el derecho al matrimonio homosexual.Con aquella argumentación, demostró su nivel de desdén por los derechos LGBTIQ+ con una elección retórica que lo apartó incluso de varios de sus compañeros jueces conservadores.La decisión de Obergefell “se utilizará para vilipendiar a los estadounidenses” que creen que las parejas del mismo sexo no merecen los mismos derechos y las personas que expresan puntos de vista anti-LGBTQ “correrán el riesgo de ser etiquetadas como intolerantes”, sostuvo Alito.¿Entiendes ahora el miedo de la comunidad LGBTQ+ a perder derechos?¿Desea saber más? Los artículos del Constitution Center sobre la Decimocuarta Enmienda son muy esclarecedores. Y los análisis judiciales de SCOTUSblog sobre las sentencias del Supremo son al mismo tiempo profundas pero fáciles de leer para no-expertos.🎬 Una recomendaciónCon la colaboración de FilminBy Emilio Doménech120 pulsaciones por minuto es una película francesa de 2017 dirigida por Robin Campillo. Cuenta la historia de un grupo de activistas galos a primeros de los 90 en su lucha por reivindicar los derechos LGBTQ en el contexto de la epidemia del SIDA.La película ganó el Gran Premio del Jurado y el premios FIPRESCI de la crítica en el Festival de Cannes de su año. Acabaría arrasando en los Premios César franceses con seis galardones entre los que se incluyeron Mejor Película, Mejor Actor de Reparto y Mejor Guion Original.Campillo logra una pieza que se siente a la vez informativa, pedagógica y profundamente emocional. Porque pese a retratar el día a día del activismo, con reuniones y debates ideológicos que a priori pueden resultar poco atractivos para el espectador, en realidad el filme hace un trabajo fantástico equilibrando dosis de intensidad dramática con episodios de exploración temática que inspiran por su lucidez.Cero sorpresas con que Campillo se llevara el premio al Mejor Montaje en los César, pues la labor de edición es el logro más incontestable del filme.Campillo era editor antes de ser director. Y también fue el guionista de una película con la que 120 pulsaciones por minuto comparte esa facilidad para convertir conversaciones con sustancia informativa, histórica y discursiva en diálogos que también tienen peso dramático: la extraordinaria La clase, de Laurent Cantet, ganadora de la Palma de Oro en Cannes en 2008.En una era en la que la comunidad LGBTQ+ en países como Estados Unidos teme por sufrir un retroceso en materia de derechos, largometrajes como el de Campillo ilustran lo difícil que fue luchar por conseguirlos.Y en la historia de los personajes de 120 pulsaciones por minuto están también la de otras tantas miles de personas que reivindicaron su igualdad en tiempos bastante más oscuros, pues la película muestra los coletazos más duros del SIDA.120 pulsaciones por minuto está disponible en Filmin.🥊 Otro récord de IbaiBy Marina EnrichLo importante: Ibai organizó este pasado sábado La velada del año 2, una noche dedicada al boxeo y a la música en el Palau Olímpic de Badalona (Barcelona) en la que varios streamers combatieron entre sí. Ah, y David Bustamante, también.La clave. Ibai logró el récord histórico de 3,3 millones de espectadores simultáneos en el stream (2,4 millones de media). El récord anterior lo tenía TheGrefg, otro streamer español, con un pico de 2,5 millones de espectadores cuando presentó su skin de Fortnite (un ‘look’ que había diseñado para el juego online).Ten en mente que el minuto de oro en la televisión española el pasado viernes se lo llevó Pasapalabra con 2,7 millones de espectadores, mientra que la Voz Kids congregó una media de 1,3 millones de espectadores durante la noche.Los highlights.Ibai anunciando dos días antes la escaleta del evento vía Twitch usando Paint. Ni comunicados de prensa, ni publicaciones estándares para sus seguidores. Lo que nos gusta.Las actuaciones de Bizarrap, Nicki Nicole, Duki o Rels B. Puedes verlas aquí.La asistencia de AuronPlay o ElRubius, sobre todo porque nunca suelen ir a este tipo de eventos.

The Ezra Klein Show
The Dobbs Decision Isn't Just About Abortion. It's About Power.

The Ezra Klein Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 26, 2022 73:54


On Friday, a Supreme Court majority voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Nearly all abortions are already banned in at least nine states, home to 7.2 million women of reproductive age. And it is likely that other bans and restrictions will follow. As the court's three liberal justices put it in their dissenting opinion, “One result of today's decision is certain: the curtailment of women's rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens.”But this decision doesn't just represent the end of abortion as a constitutional right; what we're also witnessing, before our eyes, is a legal regime change — one with striking implications for the future of the court and the country. In their majority opinion on the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the justices cast aside precedent, the court's historical norms and evidence-based concerns about how this ruling will disrupt people's lives. Even Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow conservative, argued in a concurring opinion that the decision went too far, writing, “The court's opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us.”The Dobbs ruling, in other words, isn't just about abortion; it's a conservative court majority flexing its newly unrestrained power.Dahlia Lithwick is a reporter covering the Supreme Court for Slate, the host of the podcast “Amicus” and someone I turn to whenever I need to understand the court. We discuss what Roe did and what Dobbs changes; why the rights to abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage have a much firmer constitutional basis than conservatives argue; how the majority opinion implicitly threatens those latter two rights, even while claiming to uphold them; why the most revealing opinion in the case is Roberts's scathing concurrence; why the majority's absolute disregard for precedent is so terrifying for defenders of the court; the way Justice Samuel Alito's constitutional originalism freezes past injustices into present law; what the current composition of the court means for the future of liberal governance in America; and more.Mentioned: “Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization”“There's a Way to Outmaneuver the Supreme Court, and Maine Has Found It” by Aaron TangBook recommendations:Hope in the Dark by Rebecca SolnitMan's Search for Meaning by Viktor E. FranklYou Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train by Howard ZinnWe're hiring a researcher! You can apply here or by visiting nytimes.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/NewsThoughts? 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; mixing and original music by Isaac Jones; additional engineering by Pat McCusker; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski.

Legal AF by MeidasTouch
Top legal experts REACT to this week's radical Supreme Court decisions - Legal AF 6/25

Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 26, 2022 91:58


Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast LegalAF x MeidasTouch is back for another hard-hitting look in “real time” at this week's most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this special Supreme Court episode we are joined by our co-anchor Karen Friedman Agnifilo and discuss and analyze: 1. The Supreme Court's ripping away a woman's Constitutional right to an abortion in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Alito. 2. The Supreme Court's finding a Constitutional right to conceal carry guns in public in a 6-3 decision written by Justice Thomas. 3. The Supreme Court burning down the separation between Church and State in a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts. 4. Days 4 and 5 of the Jan6 Committee Hearings outlining Trump's assault on his own Department of Justice, and on State election officials around the country as part of his coup to cling to power. And so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: https://athleticgreens.com/LegalAF https://feals.com/LegalAF https://www.slotomania.com Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Zoomed In: https://pod.link/1580828633 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Anticipating The Unintended
#174 Society is a partnership of the dead, the living and the unborn*

Anticipating The Unintended

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 26, 2022 28:27


Global Policy Watch: Woe Vs RaidInsights on policy issues making news around the World - RSJOn Friday, Justice Samuel Alito along with the conservative bloc of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) overturned the landmark Roe v Wade judgment that had granted women a federal right to terminate a pregnancy about half a century ago. The conservative raid into the SCOTUS that started with the efforts of Bush Jr and concluded with Trump appointing three judges during his term has delivered to the great woe of the progressives. The learned judges searched for the word abortion in the Constitution. And to their surprise, they figured it just wasn't there. To quote:We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”  The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.Strong stuff. But with a minor problem. I’m not sure SCOTUS has always stayed away from subjects that don’t have a reference to them in the Constitution like the learned judges have claimed. I mean I have gone through the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence document a few times. I could have also told them they won’t find a reference to abortion there. But I didn’t find the word woman in them either. No idea how that section of the human species got all sorts of rights in the US then. Also, missing from the Constitution are references to wild house parties involving strippers, or to tomatoes, home video recording, or swats to your bottom with a paddle to name just a few of my favourite things. But these are all things on whom the Court has delivered verdicts. Read them if your life is as boring as mine: Wild house parties involving strippers. Is the tomato a fruit or vegetable? The Betamax case of using a home recording device. And the case of the Principal who delivered 20 swats with a paddle to his pupil James. The SCOTUS has opined on them all. So, you see the judges aren’t exactly being consistent with precedence here. And they are setting new dubious benchmarks. There have been numerous instances of the Court striking down past judgments to grant more rights. Not to take them away. This is a repudiation of a lot of truths that progressives take for granted. That the arc of history in the long term bends towards moral justice. Or, that gains on individual liberty that survive more than a generation become irreversible. Apparently not. So, we have the US now joining El Salvador, Poland and Nicaragua in the list of countries that have rolled back abortion rights in the last three decades. About 26 states will make abortion illegal or restrict it on the back of this judgment with immediate effect. It is all quite remarkable. Some days you try and make sense of the pitched battles on the US cultural landscape: on how to use pronouns - he, she, they, it, them, their; or the definition of woman; or cancelling J.K. Rowling because she is a TERF. The terms of such debates are so rarefied that you need a primer first to understand the language being used before you can come to the substantive issues. And while they busy themselves in an ever-splintering contest of being ‘purer’ than the other, the rug gets pulled from under their feet with a judgment that rolls back years of hard-fought wins on women’s autonomy on their bodies, individual liberty and female reproductive health and safety. Now more than half the states are readying themselves to implement it tomorrow. It reinforces my view that any ideology or “-ism” isn’t threatened by its rival but by the absolute section of its own adherents. The desire to finish off the ‘near enemy” is stronger than fighting the real one. Some day the ‘trads’ and ‘raitas’ of Indian wrong wing will also get there. It is a point I have made a few times in explaining Schmitt’s notion of an enemy being essential for a political ideology to flourish.It is not that progressive are alone in this kind of hypocrisy. The same conservatives who value the life of a foetus or of those who are ‘unborn’ don’t see any problem in defending the ‘gun culture’ that takes away more than fifty thousand lives every year. For some convoluted reasons, those lives are an acceptable cost to pay for the right to possess firearms. It is sad yet funny to an outsider looking in.  This won’t stop here. The conservative majority in the SCOTUS took decades, and a lot of good fortune, to come to fruition. They will make the most of it. Justice Clarence Thomas gave a sense of what is to come in his concurring note to this ruling:“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”Quick reminder. Griswold v Connecticut is about a married couple’s right to use contraception without state interference. Lawrence v Texas restricts the states from criminalising sodomy, and Obergefell v Hodges established the right for same-sex couples to marry in 2015. Justice Thomas might be alone now in raking these up. But something tells me that the genie is out now.For all its pretensions, ideology reduces itself to three functional truths. Find something to hate viscerally, over-extend the shadow of your ideology to all realms of a citizen’s life and protect yourself by sanctifying a core principle within the ideology that cannot be made profane. You will enjoy the fruits of power while future generations will foot the bill. We are now on an overdrive of ideology on both sides of the partisan divide.  Stepping back there are three points I want to make here about what this reversal could mean from the seemingly ineluctable path the American society was marching on since the civil rights movement of the 60s. First, the tyranny of the well-organised minority in a democracy is real. American society isn’t as divided on the issue of abortion as it was decades back. Roe v Wade didn’t ‘deepen division and enflamed debate’ as Justice Alito puts it. I went through Pew and Gallup surveys over the years on people’s attitudes towards abortion. It is safe to say anywhere between 60 - 80 per cent of Americans are against the idea of making abortion illegal. Most of the remaining too don’t hold extreme positions on this topic. Maybe there’s a 15 per cent minority of evangelicals and Catholics concentrated in certain states that hold views that have been upheld by the SC. Yet they have prevailed because single-issue voters like them matter in the Republican primaries and in winning the swing states. This is what explains Trump’s base among these groups despite his standing for everything they abhor on moral grounds. And once you establish this ‘tyranny of minority’, you can override the silent majority. Because the benefits are concentrated with them while the costs are diffused among the majority. It is not as if the founding framers of the US Constitution were unaware of this risk. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Papers #22 (1788) had cautioned:“To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser.If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.” This is the reality. The only way to deal with this is for the opponents to mobilise themselves into a single issue minority that counters this or to wait for this to splinter on its own. Neither seems possible at this time in the US. But the broader message on how a minority cause can overturn a majority consensus will not be lost on many who champion fringe causes. And this is also the reason one shouldn’t casually dismiss any voice even in India as fringe as we tend to do. Fringe swings votes and influences the social and cultural agenda of political parties. It is wise to remember that when considering the statements of Yati Narsinghanand or Nupur Sharma. Second, the concurrence note by Justice Thomas that refers to other hot-button conservative cultural causes will play out in a certain way. It is important to understand this. As he wrote:“we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents …. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”What Justice Thomas has done is in public policy called ‘shifting the Overton window’. What was earlier not in the realm of discussion or consideration now comes into play. The terms of reference for the cultural debate to be played out in courts have been widened with those lines. This will have an impact on the decisions made in numerous lower courts. Lives will be affected. Lastly, I come back to a point I have made before about the sanctity of Courts directing social norms in a top-down fashion as it was first done in Roe v Wade and the manner of overturning it on Friday. A bit of context will help here.The conservative preference is for any social change to be gradual. Societal change is shaped through the many eddies of debates and protests that resist the flow of the mainstream. As they gain wider acceptance, they begin changing the course of flow of social norms. This could be painstakingly slow, but it makes change acceptable and sustainable. For the conservatives, the role of the judges is to apply laws, not to create them. Going beyond this brief becomes judicial activism. So, the original conservative view was that all issues of public or social policy should be discussed and debated by the legislative and executive branches of the state that represents the society. Courts resolve disputes following the written-down law while sending back any ambiguities to the legislative arm for approval.The liberal position, as it has evolved over time, is marked with suspicion of the society reforming itself. The classical liberal approach to this problem was to accelerate the process of change in society. This was to be achieved through a combined political, social and cultural assault on the bastions of conservatism in the society. This led to the portrait of a liberal as a perpetual activist in a constant state of mobilisation to upend existing norms. The liberal belief that society must change from within was no different from the conservative stance. The difference was between the need to induce change through proactive measures and the speed of change. This need for speed eventually led the liberals to the courts.Based on the evidence it can be argued the conservatives have lost the argument. The courts are at the front and centre of social policy-making today. The many historic judgments that cleave the US society are evidence of it. The legislative arms of the state representing the society aren’t drafting these laws.But here’s the irony. The conservatives have co-opted the liberal model. With a few strokes of good fortune, the single-minded agenda of turning the US SC bench into a conservative majority has been fruitful. The peril of pushing social change into the cabins of a powerful, centralised and autonomous institution is clear to the liberals now when the shoe is on the other foot. A blunt instrument doesn’t look blunt till it is in the hands of your adversary. The path of wresting back control to society will be long and arduous. Roe v Wade verdict in 1973 was ahead of its time. It was imposed on a society where the majority weren’t onboard. It bred resentment and a counter-movement. Justice Alito’s verdict on Friday takes us back in time. It too is imposed on a society where the majority isn’t with it. The Court is either ahead or behind the times in which they live.And it is on this subject, I come to the only line that I agreed with in Justice Alito’s 213-paged judgment:It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”That’s the way it should always be. Back in 1973. In 2022. And in future.Addendum— Pranay KotasthaneI don’t follow American politics. I’m also cognizant of my ignorance of the context of the abortion debate. And so I’ll stick to three broader points of comparison between the Indian and American political systems. First, this case brings the Constitutional Immutability Dilemma into focus. The underlying reasoning of the judgment is that the American constitution makes no specific reference to a right to obtain an abortion. The cases Roe and Casey tried to link it with other rights, which the current Court did not find acceptable. As an Indian observer, one would think that the constitution should’ve been amended to insert this right expressly, but that’s where the Constitutional Immutability Dilemma kicks in — how amendable should a constitution be after all?To resolve this dilemma, India and the US pick opposite ends. Amending the American constitution requires fulfilling extraordinary conditions, and hence just 27 amendments have been made in its nearly 250-year-old history. On the other hand, amending the Indian constitution is far easier. The latter’s mutability often attracts criticism on these lines—“a document that flexible is a periodical, not a constitution”. However, I’ve always been sceptical of that view. Constitutions are neither sacred books nor indisputable words of a supernatural force. Allowing subsequent generations to alter the constitution through their elected representatives is perhaps a better equilibrium than relying on future judges’ interpretations of an inflexible constitution. Ambedkar, in fact, cited Jefferson in defence of this choice:“We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of the majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”As this case illustrates, having rigid conditions for amendments open the door for partisan court benches to interpret the constitution as per their ideological worldviews. At the very least, I submit that a periodical is not worse than an immutable book. The working of a constitution is dependent on many factors outside the nature of the constitution itself. These lines from Ambedkar’s Constituent Assembly speech reverberate today:“..however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot. The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them?… It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgment upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are likely to pay.Second, every polity has its unique set of ‘sacred cows’—issues involving such deference and passion that logical arguments stand no chance. For reasons of historical path dependence, these issues over time become wicked, insurmountable problems. Guns and pro-life are two such sacred cow issues of the American polity. To an external observer, the solutions might seem absurdly simple. But to someone in the midst of it all, the issue seems intractable. India too has many such sacred cow issues, one of which is the sacred cow itself. Third, the judiciary often ends up confusing itself for the politician. These lines from the judgment are instructive: “And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.” Why should it be a court’s problem if its judgment has led to more division? Is it a Panchayat that needs to come to a mandavali (negotiated settlement) or should it only be concerned with the Constitutional provisions? These questions keep making a frequent appearance in India. Looks like they aren’t settled yet in the US as well. Course Advertisement: Admissions for the Sept 2022 cohort of Takshashila’s Graduate Certificate in Public Policy programme are now open! Apply by 23rd July for a 10% early bird scholarship. Visit this link to apply.India Policy Watch: Pension TensionInsights on burning policy issues in India— Pranay KotasthaneThe protests against the Agnipath scheme seem to have peaked. This gives us an opportunity to step back and look at the issue dispassionately. We have already looked at the Agnipath scheme in some detail last week. This time around, I’ll focus on the underlying motivation behind this scheme: India’s defence pension bill. In the Hindustan Times, I present a short history of India’s pension bill. "Before 1965, soldiers below officer ranks were recruited through a mechanism resembling Agnipath in the sense that they served seven years of compulsory service and didn’t receive a pension on retirement. This service period was first raised in 1965 to 10 years for bulking the armed forces after the 1962 defeat. Since a pension required a minimum service of 15 years, most soldiers still didn’t qualify.In 1976, this ten-year service term increased to 17 years, meaning every soldier in normal circumstances qualified for a pension on retirement. With the welcome development of a rising life expectancy, there was also a steady increase in the number of pensioners. The combined effect of these factors was a rapid rise in the pension bill. From Rs 228 crores in FY81, the pension expenditure galloped to Rs 5923 crores by FY99.The Kargil Review Committee (1999) set off the alarm bells over the pension issue, mooting the idea of reducing the service term to 7-10 years. As an alternative, the committee also proposed an inverse lateral induction mechanism, whereby a paramilitary force recruit would be deputed to the armed forces for seven years and repatriated back to the parent organisation after that. Through this mechanism, the experienced soldiers could be retained in the national security system longer while reducing the pension bill. None of these alternatives received the political nod. Meanwhile, in 2004, the union government was able to find a long-term solution for pensioners from the civil services cadre. While continuing to pay pensions of all current employees, the government moved its incoming employees recruited after 1 Jan 2004 to the National Pension System (NPS). NPS is a “defined contribution” scheme, where the pension is paid out of a corpus the employee and the government co-create over the employment period. Over time, this move will likely make the pension bill sustainable, as the liability is not being passed on exclusively to future taxpayers. However, armed forces personnel were kept out of this reform, mainly because non-officer rank soldiers retiring after a short 15-year service would not be able to build a robust corpus, unlike their civilian counterparts who were in service for twice that period. The lost opportunity in 2004 proved to be costly. By 2014, the public discourse had shifted in the opposite direction. Rather than customise the NPS to soldiers’ requirements—which would have been an ideal long-term solution—the NDA government implemented the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme. By agreeing to a “defined benefit” scheme that resets periodically based on current employee compensation, the union government unthinkingly committed itself to a perpetually fast-growing liability. While the government was happy to kick the can down the road, the COVID-19 pandemic was a wake-up call. On the one hand, government finances were thrown off balance. On the other, the border stand-off with China drove home the point that defence reforms are not just essential but also urgent. The creation of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) position was the first step. General Bipin Rawat repeatedly drew attention to the unsustainable defence pensions. During his tenure, a few alternatives were discussed. Each available option came with its own set of implementation challenges. Out of this imperfect set, the government chose to reduce the default service term to four years, labelling it as the Agnipath scheme.In the Times of India, I try to estimate the defence pension savings arising from Agnipath:Over the long term, it has the potential to reduce the pension burden substantially. At the same time, the scheme will not directly impact the allocations for modernisation in the short term. Here’s why.Agniveers recruited today are replacing soldiers who would have retired approximately 15 years from now. The purported pension savings would start accruing only after a decade-and-half. As for the size of savings, we created a basic model from publicly available data. Our thumb rule suggests that the net present value of all future pension outflows per soldier is Rs 1 crore. The actual savings might be higher. Reports on the initial proposal by the Indian Army for a three-year Tour of Duty put the prospective lifetime savings per soldier at nearly ten times our estimate.Arriving at an accurate figure is difficult as the government does not release the split-up of total pension expenditures between officers, soldiers, and defence civilians. To get around this data hole, we assumed that the average pension of a retiring officer is 3.5 times the average pension of a retiring soldier. To calculate the total pension outflow per soldier, we assumed that a soldier receives a pension for 29 years on average, i.e. the difference between average life expectancy (69) and the retiring age of a soldier (40). Further, since pension outflows happen over several years in the future, we use the Net Present Value (NPV) method to determine the current value of all future payments. For simplicity, we assume that the pension is indexed to the discount rate. Using even this extremely conservative model suggests significant long-term gains. Allowing 75% of the Agniveers recruited this year to let go after four years alone has a net present value of approximately Rs 34500 crores.As highlighted earlier, these savings will accrue only after 15 years. But just as today’s deficits are tomorrow’s taxes, today’s reforms become tomorrow’s savings. Through Agnipath, the government can manage pension expenditures over the long term.Finally, this entire defence pension debate has three important lessons in public policy.First, secrecy is the enemy of public policy. Kelkar & Shah, in their book In Service of the Republic, identify secrecy levels as one of the barriers to building state capacity. They write that it is harder to achieve state capacity in areas closed to open feedback and criticism. The defence pension debate is a good illustration of their assessment. As a policy analyst, the sad feature of this entire debate over defence pension is the complete absence of good data. Believe it or not, the government does not release defence pension data beyond the aggregate numbers listed in the budget documents. For example, we still don’t know how this Rs 1 Trillion amount is split up between officers, non-officers, and defence civilians. In the absence of this foundational information, myths abound (We tried to tackle five common myths in ThePrint). Moreover, without good data, the policy pipeline is clean-bowled at the very first step. There are no good models or projections to inform a cost-benefit analysis. Second, is the absolute need for ex-ante fiscal projections of government plans. Seemingly innocuous changes in pension policies can have hard-to-reverse adverse effects. An institution such as an Independent Fiscal Council can help the people and politicians understand the financial consequences of such plans even before they are implemented.Finally, I liken pension reforms to six-day test matches. Reducing employees' pensions while they are in service would be an immoral breach of trust. And hence, all pension reform options can only tackle future employees. Reforms done today can at best contain the rise in spending a couple of decades later when these yet-to-be-hired employees retire. Hence, it is imperative to exercise caution on pension policies at the inception stage. HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Articles] In #171, we discussed two missing meta-institutions in India. This week, a couple of excellent articles throw light on two other missing mechanisms. KP Krishnan in Business Standard writes about the need for an independent evaluation mechanism for statutory regulatory authorities. Rajya Sabha MP Sujeet Kumar, Vedant Monger, and Vikram Vennelakanti propose a method for formalised impact assessments before and after any law/scheme get a go-ahead.[Audiobook] The late Richard Baum’s The Fall and Rise of China lectures are terrific.[Podcast] Over at Puliyabaazi, we discuss Agnipath and related issues.* Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com

Feminist Utopia
Feminist Utopia E 92: The Alito Leak

Feminist Utopia

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 26, 2022 34:32


Sources: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/read-justice-alito-initial-abortion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_Stateshttps://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/04/performing-an-abortion-will-become-a-felony-in-these-states-if-roe-v-wade-is-overturnedhttps://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/gop-contraception-restrictions-arent-table-rcna27922https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-justice-alitos-abortion-history-lesson-dispute-2022-05-06/https://www.mediaite.com/news/nprs-nina-totenberg-the-only-theory-that-makes-sense-is-the-supreme-court-is-a-conservative-clerk/https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/the-most-extreme-lines-from-justice-samuel-alitos-leaked-opinion-on-roe.htmlhttps://time.com/5882735/tennesee-law-protest-voting-rights-felony/https://bangordailynews.com/2022/05/09/news/bangor/pro-abortion-chalk-message-appears-on-susan-collins-bangor-sidewalk/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-dismisses-trumps-lawsuit-challenging-his-twitter-ban-2022-05-06/ 

The Christian Atheist
The Dobbs Decision : Roe vs. Wade Overturned, Part 2, ”The Decision,” First part

The Christian Atheist

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 25, 2022 61:00


We here at the Christian Atheist stand for Truth above all. The historic Dobbs decision overturning Roe vs. Wade is read here WITHOUT COMMENTARY. If we are to meaningfully engage one another on this issue, we must do so by first INFORMING ourselves on the RULING itself. This installment is the first half of the decision as drafted by Justice Alito. We will publish the final half in our next post. Please stay tuned! Please send friends and opponents HERE to ground the debate in THE FACTS of the ruling. IF YOU HAVEN'T "READ" THE RULING, WHY SHOULD WE TAKE YOUR OPINION ON IT SERIOUSLY? If you'd like to support us, donate through Paypal at Romanschapter5@comcast.net Romanschapter5@comcast.net   #dobbsdecision #jacksonwomenshealthorganization #dobbsvjackson #supremecourtdecision #abortion #prolife #prochoice #casey #roe # roevwade #staredecisis #plannedparenthoodofsoutheasternpa #constitutionallaw #alito #kavanaugh #thomas #fetus #roeoverturned #gorsuch #amyconeybarrett #supremecourtjustices #plannedparenthood #conservativejustices #liberaljustices #righttoabortion #gestationalageact #mississippiabortionact #thechristianatheist #leftwing #rightwing #righttolife #righttochoose #democratsvrepublicans #murderofbabies #bodilyautonomy #legalprecedent

The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 25, 2022 42:04


Tonight on the Last Word: The Supreme Court ends the federal right to abortion. Also, Sen. Tina Smith introduces a bill to codify abortion pill access. Plus, Justice Alito's opinion relies on a jurist who executed “witches.” And restrictive abortion laws taking effect in some states have no exceptions for rape and incest. Cecile Richards, Michele Bratcher Goodwin, Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, Kelly Robinson, Sen. Tina Smith, Jill Elaine Hasday, Emily Bazelon, Rep. Katie Porter and Rep. Nikema Williams join Lawrence O'Donnell.

The Liz Wheeler Show
Ep. 164: EMERGENCY Episode: What You Need To Know About Roe

The Liz Wheeler Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 25, 2022 28:20


Actually, Nancy Pelosi, it is in fact a GREAT morning in America! In a 5-3-1 opinion, the United States Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade and the post-Roe America is officially here. Liz breaks down Justice Alito's majority opinion, examining how he addresses the most popular pro-abortion arguments and ultimately, proves that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. Plus, we'd be remiss if we didn't reflect on how exactly we got to this point and who is to thank—or not to thank, as the case may be. If this isn't proof that the culture wars are absolutely worth fighting for, nothing is. This is The Liz Wheeler Show and today, life WINS! Tune into Liz's speech as part of Young America's Foundation's Reagan Ranch High School Conference here: https://youtu.be/yxFB2jqcKpU Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

WashingTECH Tech Policy Podcast with Joe Miller
Friday News Brief - 06.24.22

WashingTECH Tech Policy Podcast with Joe Miller

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 25, 2022 3:18


Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, opening the door to surveillance In a 6-3 decision Friday, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan were the only dissenting justices. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito left it up to state legislatures to write their own abortion laws. As far as tech policy is concerned, many advocates, including WashingTech, are concerned that law enforcement will now be able to surveil location data in any of the 13 states in which abortion is now outlawed. Congress inches closer to federal privacy law The House Energy & Commerce Committee passed a bipartisan privacy framework on Thursday, with the measure now heading to the Senate. Reuters' Diane Bartz reports the bill would let you opt out of targeted ads online. It would also give users the ability to sue firms for selling their user data to third parties. The bill would override the patchwork of state privacy laws we have currently in states including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah and Virginia. The Washington Post reported Thursday that Senator Maria Cantwell, a key vote, doesn't support the bill in its current form for precisely that reason –  the Senator believes that, in many cases, the state privacy rules are stronger than the ones in the House bill. Greintens may have incited violence on social with ‘RINO' hunting video Eric Greitens, the former Republican governor of Missouri who is now running for the US Senate, posted a video appearing to encourage viewers to go ‘RINO' hunting – RINO being an acronym for Republican in Name Only. “Join the MAGA crew,” Greitens says in the video, “Get a RINO hunting permit.”  He says this as he's holding a shotgun surrounded by smoke, and a couple of boneheads dressed up as SWOT team officers bust through the door behind him. Facebook was the only company to remove the video outright. Twitter and YouTube left it up, although Twitter added a “public interest notice” to the tweet. Talk therapy apps under scrutiny If you've used a talk therapy app like Betterhelp or Talkspace since COVID started, chances are you've had at least a fleeting concern about how these companies use your data. Well, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Ron Wyden are concerned too, which is why they sent a letter to the firms asking them to explain their privacy practices. The Democratic lawmakers want to know how these firms collect data, what they do to protect it, and how they communicate their data protection practices to their users. Meta reportedly to shut down misinformation-reporting tool The Verge reports that Meta is planning to shut down Crowdtangle, which can be used to find misinformation within popular social media posts. A Meta spokesperson told the Verge that the company will probably keep Crowdtangle working at least through the midterms. After that, the company says it plans to launch a better product. Amazon may enable your Alexa assistant to take on the voice of a dead relative So at its annual re:MARS conference in Las Vegas, Amazon SVP and Head Scientist for Alexa, Rohit Prasad, demonstrated how a future iteration would enable your Alexa Assistant to take on the voice of anyone, including a dead relative, at least that was how Prasad decided to demonstrate the product – with someone's dead grandma reading a bedtime story.  Don't ask me – I'm just reading what they wrote for me here. Anyway, that's it for this week. You can find links to all of these stories in the show notes. Stay safe, stay informed, have a great weekend. See you Monday.

Trending with Timmerie - Catholic Principals applied to today's experiences.

Timmerie discusses what's next after the overturning of Roe vs. Wade (2:59). She unpacks the decision and the further meaning behind the opinions of the court (27:00). Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and discusses why it is that Roe vs. Wade was overturned (46:10).  Resources mentioned :  Support After Abortion https://supportafterabortion.com/ Brave Love https://www.bravelove.org/ Abortion Pill Reversal www.abortionpillreversal.com Pam Stenzel  https://enlightencom.com/team/pam-stenzel/

Strict Scrutiny
Roe is dead. Now what?

Strict Scrutiny

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 25, 2022 65:16


Today the Supreme Court issued their opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. It overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, meaning there is no longer constitutional protection for the right to an abortion. Melissa, Leah, and Kate recap the horrific opinion by Justice Alito and the somehow-worse concurrence by Justice Thomas, and also read some passages straight from the dissent.You're angry. We're angry. Let's do something about it. From directly supporting patients who need abortions right now, to electing pro-choice candidates in 2022 and building a progressive majority over the long term, you can find everything you need to fight back in our Fuck Bans Action Plan hub at votesaveamerica.com/roe.

Skullduggery
The end of Roe (w/ David Kaplan & Don Ayer)

Skullduggery

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 25, 2022 65:11


On Friday, the most consequential Supreme Court decision in decades came down, a 6-3 ruling overturning Roe v Wade. For nearly half a century women have had a Constitutional right to abortion, now they don't. Because, as Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion, Roe was, "egregiously wrong from the start." Informed by what he called, "exceptionally weak reasoning." The new ruling from the court ditching what seemed like well settled precedent is certainly to inflame passion. And as Biden insisted, the fight is not over. His administration, with the backing of virtually every Demacrat in Congress, will seek to pass a Federal Law codifying the right to an abortion. But even if such legislation could overcome a near certain filibuster from Senate Republicans and actually pass, would that supersede the actions of more than a dozen State legislatures that now seemed poised to ban abortion outright? Veteran Supreme Court watcher and author David Kaplan as well as former Deputy Attorney General Donald Ayer, a former Supreme Court Clerk himself, join to discuss this alongside the extraordinary testimony in front of the January 6th Committee this week. GUESTS:David Kaplan, (@dkaplan007), Author, Adjunct NYU Professor, Fmr. Newsweek Legal Affairs Editor Donald Ayer, (@DonaldAyer6), US Deputy Attorney General under President George H. W. BushHOSTS:Michael Isikoff (@Isikoff), Chief Investigative Correspondent, Yahoo NewsDaniel Klaidman (@dklaidman), Editor in Chief, Yahoo NewsVictoria Bassetti (@VBass), fellow, Brennan Center for Justice (contributing co-host)RESOURCES:Yahoo News' story on SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade - Here.Yahoo News' story on the reactions to overturning Roe v Wade - Here.Follow us on Twitter: @SkullduggeryPodListen and subscribe to "Skullduggery" on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.Email us with feedback, questions or tips: SkullduggeryPod@yahoo.com. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Advisory Opinions
Supreme Court Overturns Roe and Casey

Advisory Opinions

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 25, 2022 78:57


The outcome might not have been surprising, but the official release of the Dobbs v. Jackson opinion on Friday was still earth shaking, as it overturned Roe v. Wade and a half-century of precedent on abortion. Sarah and David convened an emergency podcast, diving headfirst into the details of the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the concurrences by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts, and the liberal dissent. What does this case mean for us and where do we go from here? Show Notes:-Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization-Sarah in Politico:“What Alito Should Have Written”-David in The Atlantic: “The Pro-Life Movement's Work Is Just Beginning”

Facts Matter
BREAKING: Roe OVERTURNED; 13 States Trigger Auto-Abortion Ban; 9 More Bans Invoked; Protests Erupt | Facts Matter

Facts Matter

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 25, 2022 10:24


It finally happened: After 49 years, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and in so doing, eliminated the so-called constitutional right to an abortion. Specifically, a month and a half after the unprecedented leak of the draft opinion to Politico, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its official ruling. And in this majority opinion, which was written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court formally overturned both Roe v. Wade as well as another case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey. ⭕️ Sign up for our NEWSLETTER and stay in touch

1A
The Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade

1A

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022 62:21


Just shy of its 50th anniversary, Roe v. Wade has been overturned.In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court voted to strike down the precedent this morning. In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives."It's a historic moment – one with massive implications for every American.And there are a lot of questions about what this means for the future of abortion access and health care more broadly. We take your calls and ask a panel of experts about the decision.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Find us on Twitter @1A.

The Editors
Episode 445: A Historic Day

The Editors

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022 76:29


Editors' Picks:Rich: Charlie's takedown of George WillMichael: NR's editorial ‘A Stain Erased'Maddy: Isaac Schorr's reporting from the Supreme Court todayPhil: The NR homepage today, focused on the Dobbs decision Light Items:Rich: Following the Yankees' seasonMichael: Inflatable waterslidesMaddy: Women's sports rallyPhil: The allure of DIY

TRUNEWS with Rick Wiles
Unborn Lives Matter: Historic Court Victory for America's Children

TRUNEWS with Rick Wiles

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022 38:13


The United States Supreme Court delivered a historic victory today for unborn babies. America's highest court overturned the Court's infamous 1973 decision known as Roe v. Wade that unleashed nationwide abortion on demand. The court upheld Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, thus letting states regulate abortion within their borders. The majority opinion was delivered by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Three of those judges were nominated by former President Donald Trump. Judge Alito wrote in the majority opinion released today, “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision….“Roe's constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed,” Alito continued. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives.”

The Hartmann Report
SCOTUS RULES THAT ROE VS WADE IS DEAD

The Hartmann Report

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022 58:24


Callers respond with outrage and opposition. The ruling, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by three appointees of former President Donald Trump. Justice Clarence Thomas, part of the majority, urged colleagues to overturn other high court rulings protecting same-sex marriage, gay sex and the use of contraceptives. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Rising
SCOTUS Strikes Roe V. Wade,

Rising

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022 101:10


Today on Rising, Historic gun bill PASSES. Will the Supreme Court OVERTURN IT? (00:00)BREAKING: SCOTUS Overturns ROE V. WADE, ending 50 years of federal abortion protections (13:37)Fed Chair JAY POWELL ADMITS his goal is to throw people OUT OF WORK: Ryan Grim (20:35)Biden's TERRIBLE Title IX decision is meant to placate RADICAL activists: Emily Jashinsky (30:38)Biden's approval rating at ROCK BOTTOM, 42% of Americans mlame him for INFLATION WOES (39:42)ABORTION now up to the STATES; What's next?: Ryan & Emily (48:16)How Houston cut HOMELESSNESS by 63% in just 10 years (1:03:57) Pete Buttigieg DOES NOTHING as country faces worse transportation crisis in decades: Writer (1:19:09)Contraception, gay marriage ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK? Thomas threatens to upend MORE SCOTUS precedent (1:26:50)Where to tune in and follow: https://linktr.ee/risingthehillMore about Rising:Rising is a weekday morning show hosted by Ryan Grim, Kim Iversen, and Robby Soave. It breaks the mold of morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before, providing outside-of-the-beltway perspectives. The show leans into the day's political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders and outsiders alike to provide coverage not provided on cable news. It also sets the day's political agenda by breaking exclusive news with a team of scoop-driven reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the country's most important political newsmakers.

The McCarthy Report
Episode 177: Dobbs, Dobbs, Dobbs

The McCarthy Report

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022 46:29


Today on The McCarthy Report, Andy and Rich discuss the historic Supreme Court ruling on the Dobbs case.

The Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed
Three Martini Lunch: U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Roe v. Wade

The Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022


Join Jim and Greg as they break down the monumental U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions that had declared a constitutional right to an abortion. They welcome the ruling as being correct from a constitutional perspective and for the good it will do in saving lives.  […]

Dark To Light with Frank & Beanz
Dark To Light: J6 Is Out Of Control

Dark To Light with Frank & Beanz

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022 45:44


The J6 fiasco is getting out of control and Beanz discusses this along with the SCOTUS decision on concealed carry on this Friday solo edition of Dark to Light. Download now for clips, a great reading of the Alito solo virtual slaughter of the dissenting opinion, and so much more! Frank will be back in […] The post Dark To Light: J6 Is Out Of Control appeared first on Radio Influence.

3 Martini Lunch
U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Roe v. Wade

3 Martini Lunch

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022 29:00


Join Jim and Greg as they break down the monumental U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions that had declared a constitutional right to an abortion. They welcome the ruling as being correct from a constitutional perspective and for the good it will do in saving lives.  They also note that not much immediately changes on abortion law and that the 50 states will now determine how they each approach the issue.In addition, they point out the Homeland Security warning about widespread violence as a result of the ruling, and Jim highlights how the decision of a justice who strongly supported abortion contributed significantly to Friday's verdict.Please visit our great sponsors:NetChoicehttps://netchoice.org/2992Join us in telling our representatives to oppose Senator Klobuchar's radical antitrust bill S2992.Presidential Election Projecthttps://presidentialelectionproject.comSign up for continued updates.

Daily Signal News
The Dobbs Decision, Explained

Daily Signal News

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022 18:58


The Supreme Court overturned its Roe v. Wade ruling Friday with a 6-3 decision in a Mississippi case that returns the issue of abortion to the people and their elected representatives after nearly 50 years. The high court's dramatic and historic ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was not a surprise to either side of the abortion debate, since a draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked in early May.Tom Jipping, a senior legal fellow for the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, joins this bonus episode of "The Daily Signal Podcast" to analyze the Supreme Court's ruling, its historic significance, and what comes next for the pro-life movement. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

InfluenceWatch Podcast
Episode 224: What is Jane's Revenge?

InfluenceWatch Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022 18:10


Since the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn Roe v. Wade, a wave of vandalism and arson has hit pro-life advocacy groups and crisis pregnancy centers that promote alternatives to abortion. Claiming responsibility for the attacks is a collective calling itself “Jane's Revenge.” Joining us to discuss who, or what, Jane's Revenge might actually be is Kevin Jones, a reporter for Catholic News Agency. Links: https://www.thecatholictelegraph.com/who-or-what-is-janes-revenge-a-look-at-the-group-invoked-in-pro-abortion-vandalism/81507 https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251593/new-york-investigating-pro-life-pregnancy-centers https://www.influencewatch.org/organization/janes-revenge/ https://www.influencewatch.org/organization/ruth-sent-us/ https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251288/tiktok-lifts-ban-on-ruth-sent-usd Subscribe to the podcast on your platform of choice at: https://influencewatch.fireside.fm/ Follow our socials: • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/capitalresearchcenter • Twitter: https://twitter.com/capitalresearch • Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/capitalresearchcenter • YouTube: https://bit.ly/CRCYouTube • Rumble: https://rumble.com/capitalresearch • Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/capitalresearch

The Marc Cox Morning Show
Ryan Wiggins- Alito 'absolutely took apart their arguments'

The Marc Cox Morning Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022 9:17


Ryan Wiggins joins Ryan Wrecker (in for Marc Cox) with a recap of the SCOTUS decision on a conceal-carry case from New York.

Daily News Brief
Daily News Brief for Friday, June 24th, 2022

Daily News Brief

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 24, 2022 14:52


This is Garrison Hardie, pinch hitting for Pastor Toby, for this Friday, June 24th, 2022. Today, we’ll cover Supreme Court STRIKES DOWN New York concealed carry restrictions, Nancy Pelosi's husband charged in his DUI case, The Military Vaccine Mandate is Under Review as Unvaccinated Public Servants Return to Work, and we’ll end with the topic that I love… sports! Let’s get to it: https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-supreme-court-strikes-down-new-york-concealed-carry-restrictions?utm_campaign=64487 Supreme Court STRIKES DOWN New York concealed carry restrictions In the case of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court has ruled that a New York gun-control law that required citizens to show "proper cause" to obtain a concealed carry license is in violation of the Constitution. The vote broke down on party lines, 6-3. In the 135 page opinion, with the majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas was joined in the majority by Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. The opinion discusses the New York state law that made is a crime to own a firearm without a license, whether that possession was inside the home or external to it. The only way for New Yorkers to obtain an unrestricted permit was to prove that they had "proper cause" to do so. A person had to "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community." Two men, Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, applied for these permits and had them denied. They are "adult, law-abiding New York residents," who wanted to have the opportunity for self-defense. They were found by authorities to not have good enough reasons for wanting to carry, and so their permits were denied. They brought suit. The two claimed that both their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated by the denial. Thomas writes that "New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense." "It is undisputed that petitioners Koch and Nash—two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens—are part of 'the people' whom the Second Amendment protects," Thomas said further, citing Heller. "And no party disputes that handguns are weapons 'in common use' today for self-defense," he wrote. "The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch's and Nash's proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of 'bear' naturally encompasses public carry. Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,'... and confrontation can surely take place outside the home." As to the state of New York's contention, Thomas writes that "the Court concludes that respondents have failed to meet their burden to identify an American tradition justifying New York’s proper-cause requirement." "The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,'" the Court states, citing McDonald. Lies, Propaganda, Story Telling, and the Serrated Edge: This year our national conference is in Knoxville, TN October 6th-8th. The theme of this year’s conference is Lies, Propaganda, Storytelling and the Serrated Edge. Satan is the father of lies, and the mother of those lies is a government who has rejected God. We have especially been lied to these last two years, and the COVIDpanic has been one of the central mechanisms that our government has used to lie to us and to grab more power. Because Christians have not been reading their bibles, we are susceptible to lies and weak in our ability to fight these lies. God has given us His word to fight Satan and his lies, and we need to recover all of God’s word, its serrated edge and all. Mark your calendars for October 6th-8th, as we fight, laugh and feast with fellowship, beer and Psalms, our amazing lineup of speakers, hanging with our awesome vendors, meeting new friends, and more. Early bird tickets are available now, but will be gone before you know it! Sign up now at flfnetwork.com/knoxville2022 From one legal battle to another, Nancy Pelosi's husband charged in DUI case https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/nancy-pelosi-husband-charged-dui-case Paul Pelosi, the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was charged Thursday in connection to a car crash in California last month. The 82-year-old was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury and driving with .08% blood alcohol level, according to the Napa County District Attorney's Office. "Based upon the extent of the injuries suffered by the victim, the District Attorney filed misdemeanor charges. This decision is consistent with how our office handles these cases with similar injuries," the office said in a statement. Paul Pelosi had been driving a 2021 Porsche 911 toward a Pelosi country house in Napa Valley around 10 p.m. local time on May 28 when a Jeep rammed into his vehicle as he attempted to cross the highway, the New York Times reported. No one was injured in the incident. Pelosi was booked at Napa County jail on suspicion of driving under the influence with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher and was released several hours later after posting $5,000 bail, records show. He is expected to appear in Napa County Superior Court at 8:30 a.m. PST on Aug. 3, the county district attorney's office said last Thursday. "The punishment for driving under the influence causing injury as a misdemeanor is set by California law. It includes up to five years of probation, a minimum of five days in jail, installation of an ignition interlock device, fines and fees, completion of a court ordered drinking driver class, and other terms as appropriate," the district attorney's office said on Thursday. Prior to the accident, Paul Pelosi underwent cataract surgery and the night before, he had attended a dinner with Alexander Mehran, a friend and Democratic donor, according to the New York Times. A previous statement from a representative for Paul Pelosi said he was alone in his car, CBS News reported, adding that he was "fully cooperative" with authorities. When asked for comment on charges, a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi referred the Washington Examiner to a communications firm that stated, "We are declining comment at this time. Military Vaccine Mandate Under Review as Unvaccinated Public Servants Return to Work https://www.theepochtimes.com/military-vaccine-mandate-under-review-as-unvaccinated-public-servants-return-to-work_4550902.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport Unvaccinated public servants were allowed back to work on June 20, including civilians of the Department of National Defence (DND), but unvaccinated Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel will have to wait for their employer’s review of the vaccine mandate to know their fate. “Given updated guidance from the Treasury Board, we are currently reviewing the CDS [Chief of Defence Staff] Directives on COVID-19 Vaccination, in order to maintain a safe working environment and while remaining ready to conduct CAF operations in support of Canadians at home and around the world,” DND said in an emailed statement on June 22. “In the meantime, the CDS Directives remain in effect for CAF members until further notice.” The CDS directive, which was issued in October, allowed for exemptions under medical, religious, or human rights grounds, but not many have been granted. Out of 1,300 exemption requests, DND says that as of May 31 only 157 were granted, with 98 for religious reasons, 42 for medical reasons, and 17 for “other reasons” (which can include claims of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act). The department says that as of June 15, the voluntary release of 103 regular forces members has been granted by the CAF. Those members cited the directive on vaccination as the primary reason for seeking release. Another 234 CAF members have been released non-voluntarily for not complying with the directive. As of June 15, 805 soldiers face remedial measures. If the CAF judges those measures to be unsuccessful, further administrative actions can be taken leading to release. DND says 463 personnel are under administrative review. Lawyer Philip Millar, a CAF combat arms veteran, is representing about 30 armed forces members affected by the vaccine mandate. He predicts the CDS will not expedite the review in order to release as many non-compliant personnel as possible. “Now that it’s clear that the mandates are untenable, unjustifiable, and unconscionable, the CDS is dragging its feet because the longer they wait, the more people get released,” he said. Millar was set to debate a motion in court on the CAF vaccine mandate this week but the hearing was postponed. “I’m sure they knew [the motion] was going to be successful, and that’s why the government changed it, but they’re playing games with people’s lives,” he says. Well hey, if you’re looking for a new job, I’ve got just the place for you: Redballoon Not so long ago, the American dream was alive and well. Employees who worked hard were rewarded, and employers looked for people who could do the job, not for people who had the right political views. RedBalloon.work is a job site designed to get us back to what made American businesses successful: free speech, hard work, and having fun. If you are a free speech employer who wants to hire employees who focus on their work and not identity politics, then post a job on RedBalloon. If you are an employee who is being censored at work or is being forced to comply with the current zeitgeist, post your resume on RedBalloon and look for a new job. redballoon.work, the job site where free speech is still alive! Now for the topic that I love… sports! https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34136486/qb-arch-manning-no-1-recruit-2023-class-commits-texas QB Arch Manning, No. 1 recruit in 2023 class, commits to Texas The recruitment of blue-chip quarterback Arch Manning, a rare collision of talent, pedigree and possibility, captivated college football for years. Manning ended the intrigue Thursday afternoon, committing to Texas over suitors that included Georgia, Alabama, LSU, Clemson and Virginia. Although Manning has long been considered the top player in the class of 2023, the family remained intent on attempting to keep his recruitment as low-key as possible. His Instagram is private, and he has not been an active participant in name, image and likeness opportunities. But keeping things low-key has still been difficult, considering the family's football history and the magnitude of how much his decision could sway a program's fortune. Manning even used his first tweet to make the announcement, on a verified Twitter account with a bio that simply says "high school student." Texas coach Steve Sarkisian also reacted to Manning's announcement, first retweeting his new quarterback recruit then writing "All Gas, No Brakes!!!" in a follow-up post. Manning is a nephew of Eli and Peyton Manning, a grandson of Archie Manning and son of former Ole Miss wide receiver Cooper Manning. He is the star quarterback at Isidore Newman High School in New Orleans -- throwing for 5,731 yards and 72 touchdowns in his first three years of high school football -- and has been considered a top-flight prospect since middle school. Any morsel of news around the quarterback has rippled significantly throughout the recruiting universe. The commitment of Manning's high school teammate and close friend Will Randle, a three-star tight end who committed to Texas earlier this week, drew interest as it represented a bellwether for where Manning could be leaning. Manning's commitment to Texas represents him both carving his own path and perhaps reuniting with the family's SEC roots. The Manning family has strong ties at Ole Miss and Tennessee, and Arch Manning could end up as a link to the SEC, as he could be Texas' starting quarterback in 2025, when the Longhorns are slated to debut in the conference. The commitment represents Texas' first No. 1 overall recruit in the ESPN 300 era (since 2006) and its first quarterback ranked in the top 20 since Garrett Gilbert in 2009. It also gives Texas a key building block for its 2023 recruiting class, with skill players expected to be attracted to playing with a talent such as Manning. The decision marks a massive win for Sarkisian, especially coming off a 5-7 debut season that included a home loss to Kansas. Manning's decision reaffirms Sarkisian as one of the country's top quarterback tutors and Texas as a quarterback destination. Sarkisian is the Longhorns' playcaller and has coached such quarterbacks as Tua Tagovailoa, Mac Jones and Matt Leinart. Thanks for tuning into this CrossPolitic Daily NewsBrief. If you liked the show, hit that share button for me. If you want to sign up for our upcoming FLF Conference, sign up now, at flfnetwork.com… and if you want to chat about becoming a corporate partner of CrossPolitc, let’s talk. Email me at garrison@fightlaughfeast.com. For CrossPoltic news, I’m Garrison Hardie. Have a great day, and Lord bless.