Podcasts about Sandford

When Emma first came to China for a two-month internship, she had no intention of learning Chinese. In fact, she had spent years telling herself she simply wasn't a "language person." But after returning to China a second time, a desire to communicate her strict vegan diet led her to begin studying Mandarin. What started as a practical goal soon became a transformative personal journey.In this episode, Emma shares how she went from intense textbook study and relentless productivity to discovering that real language growth happens through connection, conversation, and embracing mistakes. She reflects on joining an HSK 2 class with zero Chinese background, burning herself out through perfectionism, and eventually finding a healthier approach by building friendships with Chinese speakers and immersing herself in everyday life.More than a language-learning story, this is a conversation about transformation. Emma and Jared explore cultural adaptation, reverse culture shock, and how learning Chinese can change not just how you communicate, but how you think, who you become, and where you belong.

Welcome back, to Dark Realms.Today we travel to Dorset, England, to explore the chilling folklore of Sandford Orcas Manor — a Tudor house near Sherborne long associated with some of Britain's most unsettling ghost stories. Known as “the house that collected ghosts,” the manor's legends include mysterious apparitions, unexplained figures, and disturbing encounters said to have unfolded within its historic walls and grounds. Blending haunted history, local folklore, and atmospheric storytelling, this episode examines how Sandford Orcas Manor became one of Dorset's most intriguing paranormal locations, where centuries of family history, tragedy, rumour, and fear appear to linger in the stoneStay safe,Kevin.We're giving a full weeks trial of our Patreon away! Just head over on the link below and away you go!www.patreon.com/thedarkparanormalIf it's not for you? Simply cancel before your trial expires, meanwhile enjoy FULL access to our highest tier, and thank you for being the best listeners by miles.By making the choice of joining our Patreon team now, not only gives you early Ad-Free access to all our episodes, including video releases of Dark Realms, it can also give you access to the Patreon only podcast, Dark Bites. Dark Bites releases each and every week, even on the down time between seasons. There are already well over 200+ hours of unheard true paranormal experiences for you to binge at your leisure, and joining that weekly Patreon only show is our new video & Audio show, "After Dark", where you get a glimpse in to my genuine unfiltered thought process in a very informal non-edited 30 minute continuous recording.Simply head over to:www.patreon.com/thedarkparanormalTo send us YOUR experience, please either click on the below link:The Dark Paranormal - We Need Your True Ghost StoryOr head to our website: www.thedarkparanormal.comYou can also follow us on the below Social Media links:www.twitter.com/darkparanormalxwww.facebook.com/thedarkparanormalwww.youtube.com/thedarkparanormalwww.instagram.com/thedarkparanormalOur Sponsors:* Check out Acorns and use my code acorns.com/darkparanormal for a great deal: https://www.acorns.com* Check out BetterHelp and use my code betterhelp.com for a great deal: https://www.betterhelp.com* Check out BetterHelp and use my code betterhelp.com for a great deal: https://www.betterhelp.com* Check out Progressive: https://www.progressive.com* Check out Quince and use my code quince.com/darkparanormal for a great deal: https://www.quince.com* Check out Shopify and use my code shopify.com/darkparanormal for a great deal: https://www.shopify.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

DOCKET ALERTS:   The House Judiciary Committee wants to change the US Attorney statute to say what Attorney General Bondi claimed it did in court. This would involve the Senate voluntarily surrendering their power to vote on nominees, so … lotsa luck. Back in New Jersey, prosecutors say they'll seek superseding indictments in cases with Alina Habba's name on them, to remove the stink of illegitimacy.   The DOJ has quietly settled a trollsuit filed by red states and rightwing trolls, including Robert Kennedy, alleging social media censorship by the Biden administration. The Supreme Court already dropkicked this case once, so the parties agreed to simply declare victory and go home.   And Sam Bankman-Fried finds new ways to piss off judges and be sooooo weird, this time with help from his mom.   MAIN SHOW:   The DOJ settled a bogus lawsuit filed by former national security advisor Mike Flynn. His malicious prosecution claims had already been tossed by a federal judge, but she let him amend his complaint again, and by then Trump was back in the White House. Is this a new template for MAGA criminals to back the truck up to the Treasury and start filling it with taxpayer cash? The January 6 defendants sure seem to think so! We'll compare a newly filed case by rioters with a suit filed by pardoned Proud Boys.   And we've got a deep dive into the birthright citizenship case Trump v. Barbara, which will be argued at the Supreme Court this Wednesday.   Kennedy v. Biden https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67089647/kennedy-v-biden/?order_by=desc   Missouri v. Biden https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-biden/?order_by=desc   US v. Bankman-Fried https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/united-states-v-bankman-fried   Tarrio v. US [Proud Boys Bivens Suit] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70474277/tarrio-v-united-states-of-america   Sullivan v. US [J6ers FTCA Suit] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73101995/sullivan-v-united-states/   Flynn v. US [Flynn FTCA] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66930673/flynn-v-united-states   Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3231372247892780026   US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765   Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 https://www.archives.gov/files/historical-docs/doc-content/images/indian-citizenship-act-1924.pdf   Indian Law Scholars' Amicus Brief [via SCOTUS] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/399370/20260226125541217_Barbara%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf   The Nationality Act of 1940 [student Note] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1335062   Trump v. Barbara https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-365.html   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod

The Suite Spot Road Trip is back! Tune in to the latest episode to hear from hospitality leaders from Choice Hotels and Newport Hospitality Group, as they celebrate the ribbon cutting ceremony for the Comfort Inn & Suites Orlando Sanford Airport.  Check out the exclusive interviews with Andre Hickman, Wayne West III, Adam Hill, & Dena Hansen, only on the Suite Spot.   Ryan Embree: Welcome to Suite Spot, where hoteliers check in, and we check out what’s trending in hotel marketing. I’m your host, Ryan Embree. Hello everyone, welcome to another episode of The Suite Spot. This is your host, Ryan Embry, here for a special edition of the TMG Suite Spot Road Trip Series right down the road in our backyard in beautiful Sanford, Florida to visit the grand opening and Ribbon cutting event at the Comfort Inn and Suites Orlando Sanford Airport. We were invited to cover this celebratory event and talk to some of the instrumental individuals that made this property happen. Andre Hickman, the owner of the property, Wayne West III, president at Newport Hospitality. Adam Hill, VP of Operations at Newport Hospitality. And finally, Dena Hansen, Director of Sales at this beautiful, gorgeous new property opened up here. We had the privilege to cover it, bringing it to you in this episode in a busy hotel lobby celebrating the grand opening of this property. We hope you enjoy. Wayne West III: Well, welcome and thank you for coming to the celebration of the opening of this great hotel, the Comfort Inn and Suites. So make sure I get it right. Between Orlando Sanford Airport. Thank you very much. This hotel is a great example of what happens when you put a lot of smart people together and visionary people in a growing market like the Sanford Airport area. So thank you again, we’re, it’s great being here. Uh, my name is Wayne List. I’m the president of Newport Hospitality. We are honored that we get to operate a couple hotels for Andre Hickman, who I’ll reduce introduce in a little while. You’ll hear me use a couple, you’ll hear me overuse a couple words as I talk to you tonight. Really, really proud of the Hickman family. When you walk through the hotel and you see the amenities that he’s put here, how thoughtful he was and how intentional every decision was to be successful, and not just successful for him, but to make sure that all the guests are well taken care of at every touch point in the hotel, whether it’s the guest laundry or the cabana, or the pool or the exercise room. He was very, very thoughtful. I’ve, I’ve been blessed over the years and I’m trying to find my partner. Mike. Mike, I know you’re here, Mike. Yes, the tall one over here. Mike and I have opened up a lot of hotels in our years. Uh, I’m not sure we’ve opened up one Mike, that the owner was as thoughtful about every step along the way and cautious and careful and trying to do it just right for the long-term legacy of this hotel. So I’ll have to thank the Hickman family for that. If you look at the design, the finishes, the touch and the construction, the touch points are just incredible for a hotel. So the Hickman family, if you would kind of raise your hand, Andre and the Hickman family, a lot of them are over here. We want to thank you personally. I want to, I wanna talk a little bit about businesses in the area. Um, the airport obviously is, is booming. Uh, Boomba, which I know has been here a few years, but needed a desperately needed a hotel in the market. I spoke to someone the other day that was so excited. We had, they had a hotel in the market to use Go Port, one of our biggest clients here. Uh, really want to thank the community, the leadership of the community, the chamber, the folks that have joined us, um, the lending and financial partners, which really is a testament to, to Andre and his team and his legacy of all the development that he’s done. Uh, the folks from Choice Hotels are here. If they would raise their hand, I’ll lose you in the back. We have Joe, who is the leader of the Choice Hotel, sys the choice, comfort in hotels system. So great to have you with us. Uh, I wanna thank some people particularly too personally here. You’ve met Mike Clinger. He raised his hand. We have a lot of our people here that worked really, really hard with Andre to get this right. Andre did the hard work. We came in behind him and tried to fill in where our responsibility of opening up a great hotel. But I’ve got Sandra Lucas here. I saw Sandra and her husband, Sandra’s in charge of revenue for about two thirds or a third of our portfolio of 36 hotels. Uh, Adam, Adam, where are you? Adam Hill. Adam is the back. Adam is the vice President of operation for this hotel. Reports to Andre about the hotel. Uh, Whitney Ties is Whitney is in the back. Whitney’s our, our chief commercial officer and senior vice president, also an owner along with Mike and I, Mike Pinger. You’ve met, uh, Matthew Hoffman, who I hope all of y’all have met, is the general manager of this great hotel, the back, Dina Hansen, who everybody needs to beat tonight because we want her to book business with you. She’s our director of sales of both of our hotels. And part of the remarks I’ll make is about, you know, why Sandford, we’re the first hotel, I guess this close to the airport anyway. I know there’s a couple of other hotels in the market, but we don’t pay a lot of attention to those. I’m sorry if I’m offending some of the owners and general managers that are here, but that’s the truth. Uh, the airport’s booming. Andre’s had this in his line of sight for a long time and waited for the time to be right. Uh, it’s always difficult building a hotel. It’s always difficult putting a great amount of equity down and then a year, a year and a half of, of painful getting it to the birth thing, right? Yeah. Not nine months, but a true year and a half. So we thank you for that. We thank all of our partners that are here. Thank you very much for showing up. This hotel I mentioned a little earlier, has a lot of amenities, whether it’s our shuttle to the airport, whether it’s the outdoor pool, the cabana, um, the, if you haven’t seen the exercise room, we have 36 hotels. Many of them are larger than this. None of them has an exercise room that has the quality touches and is as large as that. We’re gonna be super attracted to sporting groups that are going to Baba. We’re excited about joining and, and partnering with them. I, I will tell you, as Andre built this hotel, it was all about the messaging of getting it right for his family, our guests, and our team members. So it wasn’t just about Andre. He really made the decisions based on what, how he’s gonna be successful here is taking great care of our guests and great care of our team members. I hope you all will come back. Join us lots and lots in your relatives here, your colleagues here, your weddings, events here. So thank you very much. It is really my honor. Now to introduce you to Andre Hickman, who is the developer of this property. Probably many of you know Andre. He, he’s done several other ventures in this market. We have another great hotel. We operate him for him in Sanford. But it really is just an honor and a pleasure to be here with y’all to do this grand opening. Uh, again, it was so thoughtful and so intentional. When you walk around, those things don’t happen by accident. Those things happen because this gentleman here was thoughtful about it and really tried to produce the best hotel he could in this market. So thank you very much. It was great talking to a lot of y’all. Tonight I’ll let Andre take takeover. Ryan Embree: Hello everyone. Ryan Embree here with the Suite Spot live at the grand opening of the Comfort Inn & Suites, Orlando Sanford Airport here with the owner Andre. Andre, passion project, multi-year project. A lot of blood, sweat, and tears coming. We’re here finally at the grand opening, the ribbing front. How are you feeling right now? Andre Hickman: I’m ecstatic. Yeah, it’s been a long time in the making from the first phone call to finding the property and signing the franchise and, and, uh, just very blessed to be here today. Ryan Embree: A lot of choice representation, because this is really a star property for the comfort brand. Talk to us about the words I keep hearing is intentionality, very deliberate on all the amenities where even things you were talking about in your speech over here about even where parking spaces were. Talk to us about, you know, the passion behind this project and why you wanted to make it so intentional and so deliberate. Andre Hickman: Well, it was a labor of love a lot of years in the making. Yeah. Uh, we’re near the airport and so we did a little bit of theming with the, the metal and the, and the airplane wings and the, the portico. Uh, we did a lot of extra features. We, we had another com We have another comfort in in Sanford, and I wanted to do things a little different. Yeah. And so I went bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger. So bigger pool, bigger deck, barbecue grill area, bigger lobby, taller ceilings, bigger rooms, bigger bathrooms. Um, we wanted to do a walk-in shower. I really don’t like curtains and, and glass doors. And I said, you know, if we can make a, a walk-in shower and a comfort in, that’d be quite a feat. And so a lot of design work, and we’re really pleased with how it came out. Ryan Embree: Yeah. I love doing these types of episodes and grand openings and talking to owners like yourself because you don’t get these stories sometimes in the background of the labor of love, like you speak of in the background. Now I’m a resident of Seminole County, here in Oviedo, but we’re here in Sanford, just right up the road, yet a couple Sanford City officials here, also welcoming this new business. Talk about, uh, the special place in your heart and location. Just, just a couple miles from the airport closest actually to the airport right now. Andre Hickman: We’re very fortunate to have county and city commissioners here today. Several choice representatives. Flew in to see the new hotel. Uh, we’re here by the airport. We had some airport folks here. It’s, uh, quite a, quite a unique spot because we’re located almost halfway between the Sanford Airport entrance as well as the Boomba Sports Complex. Yeah. And I think we’re in a unique spot to, to hopefully capture, uh, visitors from both those markets. Ryan Embree: Absolutely. That’s what you want. And it is the, uh, be able to attract all in every segment. Um, congratulations here on this project, Andre. Again, labor of love. It turned out perfect. We’ll let you get back to your grand opening party. Thank you so much for visiting with us. Andre Hickman: Thank you. Speaker 4: Hello everyone. Welcome to another episode of The Suite Spot. We are here at the grand opening at the Comfort Inn and Suites, Orlando Sanford Airport here with Wayne West, the third. Wayne, we saw you out in Hunter a couple years, uh, weeks, months ago. In Atlanta. Here we are in Sanford, Florida. Beautiful property opening up here. Tell us a little bit about this project. Wayne West III: Well, this is the second project for this owner we’ve operated for, for 25 years. Great owner. Takes great care of the guest, take great care of my team members, and obviously build a beautiful hotel. And the word I will use for Andre Hickman, the owner developer, is that it was so thoughtful about this property and every little nuance of it is intentional to take great care of the guest. Whether it’s a sports team coming into the boom by complex, or whether it’s distressed gas staying at the airport, which is only quarter of a mile away, the airport entrance. He was just so intentional and so thoughtful about every aspect of the property at his own expense. Yeah. He really put a lot more into this than the typical choice hotel. Ryan Embree: We talked right now, we talked at Hunter about, right now it’s about strategic growth for Newport and it needs to be the right partner. Wayne West III: Yeah. Ryan Embree: Why was this project and this owner the right project for you at Newport? Wayne West III: Well, actually we’ve been blessed enough to, to work for Andre for 25 years. When he started talking about this three years ago, he involved us from the very beginning. He was, he would come out to the site and look at it. He would talk about what the drivers were going to be, what he wanted to do to take care of those drivers. And frankly, he needed to be financially successful, but he’s put a tremendous amount of equity time and energy and effort into this to get to this product. Yeah. So he is a perfect partner for us. He’s a perfect partner for Seminole County. He’s a perfect partner for all the business around him. Ryan Embree: It’s absolutely beautiful property. Very unique. Like I said in his speech, he was actually talking about, you know, using some dry erase on some parking lots. That’s how, you know, how intentional and deliberate each decision there. We love that in hospitality, right. ’cause sometimes now they get accused of just the big box hotel. This certainly doesn’t fit that bill. Wayne West III: No. And I think if you would talk to the choice people, this is the showcase for them though. This is an example of an owner that did it right.And in some cases, what above and beyond their brand standards, just to make sure the guests are taken great care of. Ryan Embree: Love to see it, continue to see those guest expectations elevated and love to see. Can’t wait to see the feedback that everyone gets. Appreciate you taking the time to spend some time. Wayne West III: Great to do that. Thank you again. Good being with you. Ryan Embree: Thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Ryan Embree: Hello everyone. Ryan Embree here with the Suite Spot at the Comfort Inn & Suites Orlando Sanford Airport here with Adam. Adam, thank you so much for taking the time. Wonderful project, beautiful property. Just spoke to Wayne about really the high level relationship between ownership and Newport Hospitality Group. You’re the boots on the ground. You’re a little bit closer to the project. Talk to us a little bit about the story. ’cause it, you know, it didn’t just spread out of the ground. That’s a labor of love, right? Adam Hill: This project is probably 10 plus years in the making. I mean, the Hickman family, started one of the drawing board literally over 10 plus years ago. It’s one of our longest standing partners. They’ve been with Newport for almost 30 years. So for them to take this and do it, I mean, Andre painstakingly worked over the plans. They were written. I came on board about three years ago. And I was like, we’re never gonna get this over the finish line. So then we went from the site and we started with moving some dirt excavating, getting the walls up, moving it. And I mean, the project has just come to life in the last two and a half years. It’s ridiculous. But I mean, just to see all the love and hard work that the Hickman family have put into it is just amazing. This is probably the best choice product out there. You’re not gonna see a Comfort Inn like this. It’s very unique for 107 rooms, all the square footage, every room is meticulously designed to be exceptional. Ryan Embree: Absolutely an incredible story. A beautiful property here. 10 plus years in a challenging environment. Right now for hospitality. Talk to us about, you know, having that communication with ownership with the contractors, making sure even the GM, the agent, the director of sales, who’s probably planning these rooms before the hotel’s even open, trying to get some groups in here. So talk us through a little bit about that process and how that communication is key to. Adam Hill: So I think we’re very fortunate in this market. I mean, like I said, we’ve been here almost 30 years. We’ve established great grounds, great roots with the businesses that are here. We knew that the businesses were gonna grow. Even during COVID, this hotel did not suffer. I mean, this hotel did extremely well. And they’re talking about our sister hotel in the market. But, so when we knew when this room was gonna be built, we knew with Boomba right here, the airport growing, there was an opportunity. We seized that opportunity. I know there’s several other hotel projects that were planned. They’ve never got off the ground. We got this off the ground and I mean, we were able to get the financing behind it. We were able to get a solid GC that had never built a hotel before. And I mean, this is a hotel that a GC did not ever built. So I mean, it was a very, like, the stars aligned. We got a perfect team. So just tremendously happy with how it happened. Ryan Embree: The excitement was matched. We had a couple representatives from the city of Sanford talking about this property and it was equally matched because they’re excited about the airport being right here. And that’s gotta be great for the location. How is that kind of working with the city in tandem with them to help a project like this move across the finish line? Adam Hill: So I, again, our partnership extends beyond just the Newport team. So Dena serves on the Seminole County Chamber of Commerce board of Directors. We have Andre who serves on the sports district for Seminole County, so forth. So we’re very connected. We’re a very community partner. We make sure that we’re very active in our community by giving back. So, I mean, that’s opened a lot of doors for us too, where we don’t really have a major challenge of getting our head in with city leaders. ’cause we give back at the communities that we work in. Ryan Embree: Love that. That’s hospitality at its core, right? So, Adam, appreciate it. Congratulations on the property. Congratulations on the project. Biggest celebration for you as well. We’ll let you get back to it. Thank you so much for joining us. Adam Hill: Thank you. I appreciate it. Ryan Embree: Hello everyone. Ryan Embree here with the Suite Spot at the beautiful Comfort Inn and Suites Orlando Sanford Airport here with Dena, Director of Sales. You have now become the envy of every director of sales in this area. ’cause you have the nicest, most beautiful property here. Thank you for having us at your grand opening and ribbon cutting. Talk to us about this passion project. It’s just absolutely gorgeous here. Here we are in the lobby. Dena Hansen: Thank you. Well, thank you for coming and celebrating with us. Our property has really been built and created by design for those travelers coming in, not only for cruises, but the sports teams that are traveling in. We are about a mile from Boombah Sports Complex, and they have a lot of different tournaments, whether it’s baseball, lacrosse, field hockey, so lots of comfort here. We have 107 rooms. Most of them are double queens. Again, thinking of those families coming in, and I like to say it’s like Texas over here. Everything’s bigger. The pool is bigger, the deck is bigger. There’s a cabana with some lounge seating. There are two barbecue grills with patio seats as well. So if you don’t wanna go out and spend that money on food at a restaurant, uh, you’re welcome to go to Publix, which is two miles down the road, grab some food and just grill it up and have a good time. Ryan Embree: What type of traveler segment are you really getting interest from and like, inquiries for groups? Dena Hansen: Yeah. So in the beginning, a lot of wedding blocks, a lot of reunions, obviously a lot of sports blocks coming in for boombah but most recently the word has gotten out from corporate companies and they’re wanting some corporate rates. They wanna utilize our meeting space. So it’s, it’s kind of ebbs and ebb and flows a little bit. But very exciting. Ryan Embree: This location has really been starved for something here. We had a couple of city officials here that were talking about this and so happy they were equally as excited to be opening this up because the airport is growing so much. What is some of the feedback that you’ve been hearing? You’ve already have some guests in here we’ve seen coming in and out of the lobby doors. What is some of the feedback that you’ve been hearing so far from maybe the individual travelers and then maybe some of the groups that you’ve hosted here as well? Dena Hansen: Yeah. So positive feedback all around. I don’t think I’ve heard one negative thing about the hotel. They enjoy the space. They love the pool area, especially for families that have littles. There’s a sun shelf on the pool. So it’s easier for them to watch the kids. Just the extra space and how wide and open and comforting everything is is amazing. Somebody actually said they love our sheets. Ryan Embree: Okay. Yeah. That’s a new one too. Awesome. Well, I wanna wrap up by just talking about maybe the relationship that as a DOS you gotta have really good relationships and connections with local businesses. Obviously the community. Seminole County, I’m a resident of Seminole County, right down the road. So, talk to us a little bit about how you’ve been able to build those and give back to the community and how they’ve supported you, and vice versa. Dena Hansen: Yeah. So, not only are we a part of both Seminole County Chamber and the Sanford Chamber. I’m on the board of Directors for the Sanford Chamber as well. And doing that it is really all about building the relationships, maintaining contact and just helping each other out and partnering together. That’s really what it’s about. So if, if they need a meeting space, we actually house the Sanford Chamber breakfast, weekly breakfast meetings for Q3. We’ll be here every Wednesday from 7:30AM – 9:00AM. Shameless plug. But yeah, relationship building, it’s mandatory. Nobody wants to do business with somebody you don’t know. You wanna know that you’re gonna be taken care of. And when you walk through those doors, I guarantee you from the moment you step through to the moment you leave, we have you. Ryan Embree: That’s hospitality. Dena Hansen: Living hospitality at its best at Comfort Inn & Suites Orlando Sanford Airport. Ryan Embree: Dena, thank you so much. Thank you. Congratulations. We’ll let you get back to the party here. Thank you. And celebrate this incredible property. Dena Hansen: Thank you very much. Ryan Embree: To join our loyalty program, be sure to subscribe and give us a five star rating on iTunes. Suite Spot is produced by Travel Media Group. Our editor is Brandon Bell with Cover Art by Bary Gordon. I’m your host Ryan, and we hope you enjoyed your stay.

Historian and New York Times bestselling author Jemar Tisby joins Mark Labberton to confront the Supreme Court's 6–3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which has eviscerated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and reopened the door to racial gerrymandering across the South. Recorded in the immediate aftermath, the conversation traces the long arc from the Three-Fifths Clause and Dred Scott through Selma to this hour. "This has landed in the black community harder and heavier than a lot of what we've seen during the Trump administration." In this episode with Mark Labberton, Tisby reflects on the history of black disenfranchisement, the cynicism of colorblind jurisprudence, and what remains of multiracial democracy in America. Together they discuss how the legal architecture of Jim Crow reemerges under neutral language, John Roberts's decades-long campaign against the Voting Rights Act, Justice Kagan's umbrella analogy, the suspension of Louisiana's primary, the black church's response, and why this midterm may be the country's last political chance. Episode Highlights "This has landed in the black community harder and heavier than a lot of what we've seen during the Trump administration, and that's saying a lot." "It boggles the mind that folks sitting on the highest court in the land who have been to all these Ivy League schools, have literally decades of experience, can get it so wrong and stand so arrogantly on such faulty reasoning." "Colorblindness only works if you're starting from a level playing field." "These are not good-faith actors, not people wanting a representative democracy, but people wanting to consolidate power, which we call minority rule." "If you can't win on the merits of what you believe, then you have to rig the system so that no one can get you out of office." About Jemar Tisby Jemar Tisby is a New York Times bestselling author, historian, speaker, and professor of history at Simmons College of Kentucky, a historically black college in Louisville. He holds a BA from the University of Notre Dame, an MDiv from Reformed Theological Seminary, and a PhD in history from the University of Mississippi, where he studied race, religion, and social movements in the twentieth century. He is the founder of The Witness, Inc., a black Christian collective, and the author of The Color of Compromise, How to Fight Racism, and The Spirit of Justice: True Stories of Faith, Race, and Resistance. His commentary appears on CNN and in The Atlantic, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, and he writes Footnotes, a top-ranked history publication on Substack. Helpful Links and Resources Jemar Tisby's website: https://jemartisby.com Footnotes by Jemar Tisby (Substack): https://jemartisby.substack.com The Spirit of Justice: True Stories of Faith, Race, and Resistance (most recent book): https://jemartisby.com/the-spirit-of-justice/ The Color of Compromise: The Truth About the American Church's Complicity in Racism (bestseller): https://www.zondervan.com/9780310113607/the-color-of-compromise/ How to Fight Racism: https://www.harpercollins.com/products/how-to-fight-racism-jemar-tisby The Justice Briefing podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/footnotes-with-dr-jemar-tisby/id1460240056 Louisiana v. Callais, opinion of the Court (April 29, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf Elie Mystal, "The Supreme Court Has Completed Its Quest to Kill the Voting Rights Act," The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-demolishes-voting-rights-act/ "Sing Out, March On"—Joshuah Campbell's tribute to John Lewis, Harvard 2018 Commencement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=mKNRXQemxWQ NAACP Legal Defense Fund—Louisiana v. Callais case page: https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/louisiana-v-callais/ Brennan Center for Justice—Louisiana v. Callais: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/louisiana-v-callais Show Notes Why this conversation now: the SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act last week News breaking through a group text of lawyers, organizers, clergy, nonprofit leaders "This has landed in the black community harder and heavier than a lot of what we've seen during the Trump administration." John Lewis, SNCC, and the march from Selma to Montgomery A baton hard enough to crack the skull, the hardest bone in the body "It boggles the mind that folks sitting on the highest court in the land…can get it so wrong and stand so arrogantly on such faulty reasoning." Allen Temple Baptist in Oakland—watermelons, bubbles, and jelly beans on a Sunday morning The Three-Fifths Clause and the architecture of representation Dred Scott v. Sandford—"property can't sue" Reconstruction Amendments: 13th, 14th, 15th—birthright citizenship newly under threat Jim Crow's neutral codes: poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses Voting Rights Act of 1965 as the culmination of the civil rights movement Edmund Pettus Bridge—Bloody Sunday going viral in its day LBJ signs the bill with Rosa Parks and MLK in the room Elie Mystal in The Nation: gerrymandering with plausible deniability—https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-demolishes-voting-rights-act/ Shelby County v. Holder, 2013—preclearance gutted Roberts's tautology—stop discriminating to stop discrimination "Colorblindness only works if you're starting from a level playing field." Cast and umbrella analogies for premature dismantling of civil rights remedies Plaintiff Bert Callais's January 6 ties; Louisiana's roughly one-third black population Governor Jeff Landry's emergency order suspends Louisiana's May primary mid-election "These are not good faith actors…people wanting to consolidate power, which we call minority rule." "If you can't win on the merits of what you believe, then you have to rig the system so that no one can get you out of office." The activism horizon—courts, churches, voter registration, midterm turnout, NAACP, LDF, Brennan Center The last political chance before competitive authoritarianism #VotingRightsAct #JemarTisby #LouisianaVCallais #SCOTUS #CivilRights #BlackChurch #FaithAndJustice #SelmaToMontgomery #Democracy #MarkLabberton Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment magazine and Fuller Seminary.

This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1866On April 9, 1866, the United States Congress took a decisive step in shaping post-Civil War legal order by overriding President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This marked the first time in American history that a major piece of civil rights legislation became law over a presidential veto. The Act established that all persons born in the United States were citizens, directly challenging the legacy of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had denied citizenship to African Americans. By affirming equal protection under the law, Congress sought to secure basic civil rights for newly freed individuals in the aftermath of the Civil War. The override demonstrated a powerful assertion of legislative authority during the Reconstruction era.The law also reflected growing tensions between Congress and the executive branch over how to rebuild the nation. Johnson had argued that the Act overstepped federal authority, but Congress rejected that view, signaling a shift toward stronger federal protection of individual rights. This moment helped redefine the balance of power within the federal government. It also underscored the role of Congress in enforcing civil rights when the executive resisted such measures. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 would later serve as a foundation for the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which constitutionalized its key principles.In practical terms, the Act granted citizens the right to make contracts, sue in court, and own property regardless of race. Although enforcement remained uneven, the statute represented a critical legal milestone in the transition from slavery to citizenship. It also set an enduring precedent for future civil rights legislation. The events of April 9, 1866, illustrate how constitutional mechanisms like veto overrides can shape the trajectory of American law.A former DLA Piper associate, Anisha Mehta, testified in federal court that she was unexpectedly fired shortly after announcing her pregnancy, despite receiving positive feedback on her work. She told the jury she handled significant responsibilities, including managing trademark portfolios for major corporate clients, and believed her performance was strong. Mehta said her supervisor initially reacted supportively to her pregnancy but soon raised vague performance concerns that she had not previously encountered. She described feeling shocked and distressed when she was terminated during a call with her supervisor and an HR representative in August 2022.Mehta claims the firm violated federal and New York City laws by discriminating against her based on pregnancy, while DLA Piper maintains she was dismissed for poor performance. She testified that she attempted to challenge the termination and requested to go through a formal evaluation process, but was denied. After her firing, she continued working briefly until her system access was cut off when she declined a severance agreement.Following her termination, Mehta applied to hundreds of jobs while pregnant but struggled to find employment. She eventually secured a position at eBay in 2024, earning significantly less than her prior salary. During cross-examination, the defense highlighted several alleged mistakes, including minor errors in client communications and administrative oversights, to support its claim of poor performance. Mehta acknowledged some errors but characterized them as minor and not indicative of overall poor work.At the center of the case is whether Mehta's termination was motivated by unlawful pregnancy discrimination or legitimate performance concerns. The legal issue involves employment protections under anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit adverse actions based on pregnancy while still allowing employers to terminate at-will employees for lawful reasons.Pregnant DLA Piper Atty Recounts Firing: ‘This Feels Wrong' - Law360A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that a coalition of states can proceed with their lawsuit challenging a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose denied the federal government's motion to dismiss, finding that the states presented plausible claims under both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. She also criticized the government for repeating jurisdictional arguments that had already been rejected earlier in the case and by the appellate court.The lawsuit, brought by 19 states and Washington, D.C., challenges a sweeping overhaul that aimed to significantly reduce the agency's workforce and restructure key programs. The states argue that the changes disrupted essential public health services, including disease detection, tobacco control efforts, and lead poisoning prevention. They also claim the restructuring caused missed regulatory deadlines, canceled health initiatives, and confusion around federal grants.Judge DuBose had previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking layoffs, noting that the states demonstrated real and ongoing harm. In this latest ruling, she emphasized that courts have the authority to review and stop government actions that may violate constitutional principles, including separation of powers. The states allege the overhaul exceeded executive authority and violated both statutory requirements and constitutional limits on government power.The federal government argued that the states lacked standing, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and that the agency's actions were lawful internal management decisions. However, the judge rejected these arguments, stating they had already been considered and did not undermine the plausibility of the claims. As a result, the case will move forward, allowing the states to continue challenging the legality of the HHS restructuring.HHS Must Face States' Suit Over RFK's ‘Dramatic Overhaul' - Law360John Deere has agreed to a $99 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by farmers who accused the company of restricting competition in the repair market for its equipment. The farmers alleged that John Deere limited access to necessary diagnostic tools and software, effectively forcing customers to rely on authorized dealers for repairs at higher costs. The company denied wrongdoing but said the agreement resolves the dispute and allows it to move forward.The settlement includes both monetary compensation and significant changes to repair access. Farmers who paid for repairs through authorized dealers since 2018 will be eligible for compensation, with total payouts expected to exceed $100 million with interest. Experts estimated that the alleged overcharges ranged much higher, making the recovery a relatively strong percentage compared to typical antitrust settlements.In addition to financial relief, John Deere agreed to provide independent repair shops and equipment owners with access to diagnostic tools and software over a 10-year period. This change is intended to allow farmers to repair their own equipment or use third-party providers, addressing concerns about restricted competition. Plaintiffs described this as a major shift that breaks down the company's control over the repair market.The lawsuit, filed in 2022, claimed that John Deere monopolized the aftermarket for repairs by designing equipment that required proprietary tools. A federal judge previously allowed the case to proceed, finding sufficient evidence of potential market power. While this settlement resolves the private lawsuit, similar claims brought by the Federal Trade Commission remain ongoing.John Deere Inks $99M Deal In Farmers' Right-To-Repair Suit - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Sir Sandford Fleming is most famous for developing time zones and standardized time, but he was so much more. He created our first stamp, built our railways and event connected the British Empire by telegraph. ORDER MY FIRST HISTORY BOOK! CANADA'S MAIN STREET: https://sutherlandhousebooks.com/product/canadas-main-street/ Donate: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠buymeacoffee.com/craigu⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Donate: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠canadaehx.com (Click Donate)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/canadaehx⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Merch: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.ohcanadashop.com/collections/canadian-history-ehx⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Hello Fresh: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HelloFresh.ca/CHEHX⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ E-mail: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠craig@canadaehx.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠twitter.com/craigbaird⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Threads: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.threads.net/@cdnhistoryehx⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Tiktok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@cdnhistoryehx⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/c/canadianhistoryehx⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Want to send me something? Craig Baird PO Box 2384 Stony Plain PO Main, Alberta T7Z1X Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Further Reading:Supreme Court majority seems inclined to rule against Trump on birthright citizenship - LINKDred Scott v. Sandford (1857) - LINKReefer Madness Original Trailer - LINK (YouTube) President Trump Addresses Nation on War with Iran (Full Speech) - LINK (CSPAN)'What the hell did he just say?' GOP Iran worries build after Trump speech. - LINKRussia plants flag on North Pole seabed - LINK Beginning Music: Glenn Gould - Goldberg Variation #5Ending Music: Electronic - Getting Away With it (Instrumental)Remember to Register to vote! Mass Residents should go to: https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/For more Civil Politics visit our website, civilpoliticsradio.com!If you want to get alerted to new episodes on social media, follow our Bluesky: @CivilPoliticsRadio.comDon't miss another episode - subscribe to our podcast (iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, and more!)This podcast is a member of the Planetside Podcast Network. Visit PlanetsidePodcasts.com to find other Planetside Productions!

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Annie Lee moderates a panel with African and Asian Americans about the impacts of Birthright Citizenship and the need for Surviving Through Solidarity. Guests include: Lisa Holder, Ming Hsu Chen, Don Tamaki and Michael Harris.   Link to an APEX Episode on Wong Kim Ark from March 20, 2025 Show Transcript [00:00:00] Opening Music: Apex Express Asian Pacific expression. Community and cultural coverage, music and calendar, new visions and voices, coming to you with an Asian Pacific Islander point of view. It's time to get on board the Apex Express.   [00:00:40] Miko Lee: Welcome to Apex Express. I'm your host, Miko Lee, and tonight we will listen to a recent event, Birthright Citizenship, Surviving Through Solidarity that took place at Chinese for Affirmative Action. Just yesterday, on April 1st, the Supreme Court heard the case around birthright citizenship. This event that you're gonna listen to was highlighting Asian and African American solidarity. As you might know, the cases of dread Scott in 1857 and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 are linked as landmark Supreme Court cases that directly defined and redefined American citizenship specifically about race and birthright. While Dred Scott denied citizenship to people of African descent, Wong Kim Ark's case utilized the subsequent 14th Amendment to solidify birthright citizenship for children born to foreign nationals. I'm just noting that in this conversation, because it was a panel discussion that was live, there was some irregular use of microphones, so sometimes the audio can be a bit spotty. Please bear with us, and if you want to review the transcript, check out our website, kpfa.org, apex Express. And last year we also covered the story of Wong Kim Ark and have included this past show in our show notes. Now let's listen in to moderator Annie Lee, Lawyers Michael Harris and Don Tamaki, Lisa Holder of Equal Justice Society and Ming Chen of UC Law.   [00:02:20] Annie Lee: Everyone. My name is Annie Lee and I am the managing director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action. Welcome to CAA's office here in San Francisco, Chinatown. And thank you all for being here today for our discussion: Birthright Citizenship Surviving through Solidarity. CAA and Stop AAPI Hate are proud to co-sponsor this event because it matters to us. CAA has been around since 1969 and we are a community based organization that provides direct services to lingual working class Chinese immigrants. And we also try to improve their lives through policy and advocacy. And in 2020, we co-founded Stop AAPI Hate, which is the national leading aggregator of anti-Asian hate incidents. And we know at Stop AAPI Hate that anti-immigrant policies are anti-Asian hate. So why are we here right now? March marks two anniversaries of two Supreme Court cases. One is Dred Scott and the other is Wong Kim Ark. These are two seminal cases in US history. And next week on April 1st, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the lawsuits challenging Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. So we are here to talk about birthright citizenship because it's an issue that is near and dear to both the Black and Asian communities.   [00:03:46] Without further ado, I am so thrilled to welcome this panel of amazing folks. Let's start with Michael Harris. Michael Harris here on my right is a retired attorney. He, for many, many years led the juvenile justice division at the National Center for Youth Law, an incredible litigator and advocates, and I'm so proud that he's here. He's also on the Equal Justice Society Board. Next to Michael is Don Tamaki. Don is a lawyer at the firm Minami Tamaki, and you might know him because he was part of the legal team that successfully got reparations for Japanese Americans after decades of fighting that injustice. So thank you Don. Don and Lisa, actually, spend time together on the California Reparations Task Force. And so this is Lisa Holder next to Don. Lisa is the president of the Equal Justice Society, which is based in Oakland, an incredible legal organization that has been in many, many fights, including, they filed an amicus brief in support of birthright citizenship, and that brief discusses why this is an issue for the Black community. And last but not least, we have Professor Ming Chen, who is a law professor at UC Law, and she's also the faculty director of the RICE Program, which is Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality. So thank you so much to my panel and let's dive in. So some of you know, but I am a former US history teacher, so I often worry that people don't adequately understand American history and I fear that people don't understand reconstruction and the 14th Amendment. So let's start with the origin of birthright citizenship. What is birthright citizenship and where did it come from and why does its origin matter for understanding what's happening today? So Ming, I'm gonna start with you because you're a law professor and then others chime in. Lisa, Michael, Don. 'cause I think you'll have more to add.   [00:05:45] Ming Chen: Great. Thank you so much Annie, and thank you to CAA for having us all. I'm really excited to be part of this conversation, which I think is going to be really the beginning of a series of conversations over the next few months. So you're starting in the right place, Annie, in asking us what birthright citizenship is, because that is the heart of what the common lawsuit will be about: who gets to be a citizen in the United States. And that's actually why I named my organization RICE. I think the emphasis is on the “C” [citizenship], because I do think it is something that brings together immigrant communities, as well as all of the different communities within the United States that have been expanding, over time. Getting to the, legal text I, I think it's important to remember first that birthright citizenship is bigger than the United States. Worldwide there are at least two ways of becoming a citizen. One is by birthright and the other is by naturalized citizenship. So we're talking about the birthright half. And the United States is not alone. It's among countries mostly in the Western hemisphere that have chosen to focus on the “jus soli” version of birthright citizenship, which is “soli” is soil. So it's birth by touching US soil. And the idea behind that theory was always meant to be an egalitarian one. It's one that is about the idea that anyone can become a citizen, right? In contrast to the older system that Europe and other countries use, “jus sanguinis,” which is to say that citizenship could only be inherited by blood and heritage. Right? So I think right from the very beginning, it tells us what the text and the history of our 14th amendment citizenship clause intended to accomplish, which was to have an egalitarian spirit, a fresh start, and a continual renewal of what it means to be an American.   [00:07:33] Lisa Holder: Just sort of continuing on the path that Ming just opened up for us, birthright citizenship is very much connected to the African American experience. Particularly because the genesis of that right, really was a reversal of the construct and the regime of the enslavement era, right? Everyone's aware that during that era, descendants of Africa were not considered humans, much less citizens. And the legal cases that were brought where people try to have their citizenship, and their humanity acknowledged, the courts universally said, no, you are not citizens and Black people have no rights that white people need to respect. Right. And so that was the case, law of the land until, after the Civil War, when we had the 13th, 14th, and 15th, amendments were lifted up and embedded into our laws. You also had the Civil Rights Act of 1866 where that body of law was overturned and enshrined into our constitution was a new law that said that freed people are citizens and they do have rights that everyone needs to respect and rights to equality. You know, we know that there have been problems executing that [laughs] but at least enshrined in our laws and enshrined in our constitution that is where the birthright citizenship, constitutional law came from. It came out of that experience.    [00:09:21] Michael Harris: I just want to add a couple things to that. I mean, it's very distinguished scholars, they're hitting it really hard. Two things, universality and so I wanna talk about that first. I got one more coming forward. It's universal. Birthright citizenship is universal. And what I mean by that is everybody gets to be a citizen who's born here in the United States. Period. It's universal, applies to everybody. It doesn't matter if you're Black or white or Asian, none of that matters. That's really important. The other thing is it's that this criteria is not something that's subjective, nobody gets to decide. It's automatic. If you're born here, you automatically have citizenship. Those two things being automatic and being universal I think are really important. And this, we'll talk about this more as we go through the conversation, but those two things are what makes birthright citizenship so powerful and why they keep coming to try and take it down because it's universal so everybody gets it and it's automatic. Nobody can take it away. So let's, we'll I'll just leave it there for now, but we'll come back to that.   [00:10:33] Annie Lee: Don, this one's for you. So the 14th Amendment passes in 1868. Like Lisa said, it's to reverse Dred Scott, where the Justice Taney wrote that Black people had no rights, which the white man was bound to respect. And so they had to repudiate that through the 14th amendments, they have universal and automatic birthright citizenship with very, very few exceptions for like diplomats kids. Okay, that's like so, so narrow. So 14th Amendment passes in 1868, but it takes another 30 years for a Chinese American man named Wong Kim Ark to establish that birthright citizenship actually applied to the children of immigrants. So Don, can you tell us Wong Kim Ark's story, who was he, what happened to him and why did the federal rural government make him this test case?   [00:11:22] Don Tamaki: Just a couple words about context. I mean, one of the remarkable things about the case is it occurred during especially California's ultra racist, ultra virulent racist period. It's a contradiction in that regard. So just taking you back to the origins of where this racial pathology comes from, of course we focus, tend to focus on Asian American history, but actually you have to begin with Black history and indigenous history in the country. So in 1619, the first enslaved people were brought to America. And you know, 12 million people were kidnapped off the west coast of Africa. 2 million died during the middle passage. 400,000 were dropped off in America, and the million other millions ended up in the Caribbean, in the Brazil in Haiti, Jamaica, et cetera. And from there, slavery in America continued for 246 years. Two and a half centuries. Civil war happened in 1865. It concluded, and for another 100 years, Jim Crow exclusion infected America. And San Francisco, by the way, was heavily Jim Crow until the 1960s and into the 1970s. The vestiges of that exclusion and discrimination directly are rooted in the Black American experience.   [00:12:52] Michael Harris: And it's still present here today. That's why we have a Chinatown. That's why we have a Japantown in San Francisco because of what Don just did.    [00:13:00] Don Tamaki: Redlining and racial covenants.    [00:13:02] Michael Harris: That's right.    [00:13:03] Don Tamaki: Exclusions, redevelopment, and so on. So people think of California as being like a enlightened state. Well, California did enter the union in 1850 before the Civil War. 1849 enslavers came to California and they brought their human property with them. So there were probably at least 1500 enslaved people in California. 1865 Civil War ended, but Democrats in 1868 rose to power saying they would vote against any law that would have any equality between , Black Californians, indigenous people, and Chinese folks. And beginning toward late 1800s, that's when the bulk of Asian American immigration began. First Chinese American coming during the gold rush, and then Japanese Americans have followed and so on. And so, Jim Crow seeped into all that. Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882. California was known as a strong Klan state by the end of the 1800s with strong Ku Klux Klan chapters in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, Riverside, San Jose, Anaheim and so on. And so this was a toxic stew that Chinese immigrated into and other groups too. So unsurprisingly, tons of anti-Asian legislation policies, exclusion, follow. So Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who lived and operated a business here. His parents continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, and then they departed for China. Probably no doubt because of the inhospitable conditions here. And racial terror was part of that, including the race riots here in Chinatown. And now that I mention it between 1865 to 1935, 352 people were lynched in California. Eight of those were Black Californians, but the rest were indigenous, Chinese, and persons of Mexican descent.   [00:15:18] So that was the environment. Wong Kim Ark continued to live in California into his twenties, reportedly working as a cook in San Francisco. And at the age of 21 he actually made two trips to China. He made a trip to China when he was 17 to visit his parents. Stayed there a year, came back without incident worked, came back here, worked till he was 21, then went back to China to visit his parents at that point. And when he attempted to reenter the United States, he was denied entry and detained with a threat of deportation upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States. Of course he was born here. So the issue was you know, birthright citizenship was the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment did it apply to Wong Kim Ark. And the interesting thing is about the case is that the court ruled in his favor. All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And those words are now, today becomes crucial. And people, I think we on the panel will talk about the implications of that language subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it established this principle that basically was reaffirmed repeatedly throughout our history for this 100 year plus period. To get to your last question, why did the court do this? I think scholars smarter than me can explain this, but I'll give you some clues. The court ruled in Wong Kim Ark's favor despite the virulent context of the era, because that's what the plain and expansive language of the 14th Amendment says.   [00:17:02] All persons didn't say formally enslaved, didn't say Black Americans. It said all persons. That's what the plain expensive language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 says: all persons and as Lisa referred to. And the congressional record of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1862, where legislators are debating these issues they clearly understood, and the record shows that if you include this expansive language, it will apply to groups like Chinese and Asians. And so with that understood it was adopted and ratified in 1868, 14th Amendment, and it was reaffirmed in other legislation like the Immigration Act of 1940. They just assumed that if you're born in this country, you're an American citizen. It was applied throughout the turbulent history involving my community, Japanese Americans. As you recall, 1942, 125,000 people were rounded up and put in concentration camps and the first generation were ineligible to become citizens. They were given identity cards marking them as enemy aliens. 2000 people died in those camps, but people were born in those camps. And the government, despite the fact that we were at war with Japan, understood that if you're born in this country. And even if your parents were quote, “enemy aliens,” you're gonna be classified as American citizens. And maybe lastly, the court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark because the 14th Amendment was trying to repair the harm done by Dred Scott v. Sandford, which was to provide human beings who've been here for two and a half centuries, the right to become an American citizen with all the benefits that go with that, like voting for instance. And recognizing that if you don't have those rights, you don't have anything, you are you, you're nothing. And for Japanese Americans, for instance, who are born in those camps, can you imagine if they didn't have birthright citizenship? They're not part of Japan. They're not part of America. Where are they? They're stateless. They have no home. They have no rights. And so it would create another underclass of people who have no rights for, and for which the 14th Amendment was trying to remedy which was you know, to provide a pathway. And so I guess you could say that's why, that's the incongruity of why Wong Kim Ark came out that way. In my opinion.   [00:19:59] Ming Chen: Maybe what I could add to the conversation is not just sort of who is included but who is not included. Because I think that's actually a much more small and specific group than the current dialogue would have you believe. So in the very language of the 14th Amendment, this idea of subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It refers to three exceptions and only three exceptions. One is for Native Americans, and that is because as of 1924 there wasn't a need to grant citizenship through the 14th Amendment because there were other provisions to grant citizenship to Native Americans. The second exception is for those who are children of diplomats. And the reason for that is because they have citizenship in their home country and their parents are only on a temporary post to the United States with the understanding that they're here in the United States in service to their home country. And I think that actually points to the limited meaning of the third exception, which is the one that I have to say, I have a really hard time understanding is part of the debate now. Because I think up until now, you know, this debate renews itself a couple times every year. Every time there's a new census, every time there's redistricting on all of the anniversaries, and usually the fight is about subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the third exception, which has come into the dialogue, is about the language of accepting children of invading armies. And that is one that I have not thought we needed to argue about. It really becomes a touch point as Don mentions this history with internment and the children of a group of enemy aliens. I think that gives it a whole new historical read.   [00:21:48] But one of the reasons that this argument, I guess I should first explain the argument because it may not be obvious to you as it was not obvious to me the first time I heard it, which was about 18 months ago. And so the argument is that the children of invading armies referring mostly to the children of immigrants coming across the US Mexico border should not be considered birthright citizens. So that's kind of what the public debate, what the insinuation is behind some of the current effort to chip away at Wong Kim Ark through the executive order. There have been many efforts to chip away through legislation. I don't know how frequently it's been attempted through constitutional amendment, which is what it would actually require. That's a very, very high bar that's almost never met. I think most people haven't really made a serious, serious effort there. But what I think is kind of stunning to me in the sort of momentum behind the current moment is that Judge Ho who himself is a birthright citizen. Took up this language and this argument about the children of invading armies after previously saying that he agreed with this interpretation that children of undocumented immigrants, children of temporary visas all of these different legal statuses in addition to all of these racial groups, would immediately be citizens. And the argument he tried to make is that it wouldn't include the group at the border because historically it wouldn't have included enemy aliens or invading aliens either. And I think that what is so surprising to me is that a) that there is meant to be this historical analog between what would've been happening at the time of the Civil War and what is happening now at the US Mexico border. We are not having a civil war. We are not in active military conflict at the US Mexico border. I'll set aside other US military conflicts and how we wanna use that terminology. But I think that's really important because I, I feel like it's almost a trick, you know, to turn what is a media frame that's meant to be like clickbait, right? The idea that there is an invasion at the border, right. That we're being flooded with people who don't belong here. And to try to turn that into a legal argument saying this is actually an invading army and that takes this group outside of the 14th Amendment.    [00:24:19] Michael Harris: That's, I was gonna ask you a follow up question because we haven't been invaded that many times by armies I mean, maybe the War for Independence when the British sent ships over and took over Boston for a while. I could see how if they had kids, I mean, that's a stretch, that might apply to this. But I think the rhetorical device, they're touching on where they speak of people who come into the United States without proper documentation as an invading army or an invading whatever. They use that terminology quite often. Is that enough to bootstrap into this exception?    [00:24:59] Ming Chen: I, not to me, [audience and panel laughter] I think not to serious legal scholars and jurists. I mean, and you know, I'm not trying to be inflammatory by saying that. I think there are a lot of people who are pretty far away from me on a legal and political spectrum who would also say that this argument is pretty unprecedented. To try to say that that would be enough to bootstrap it into the actual text of the constitution or the spirit of Wong Kim Ark. So I think it's going really, really far. And I think too far, and I hope that if that becomes a line of discussion during the oral argument, that it would be cut off pretty quickly.   [00:25:38] Annie Lee: Well, let me punt it to Lisa then. If it's pretty clear based on the text, based on the legislative history, based on, just everything in the last 125 years that has said very clearly that birthright citizenship is universal and automatic. Why is Trump doing this? Like, what is being attempted legally, but also politically? And Lisa, you take a stab at this first and then others can chime in.    [00:26:04] Lisa Holder: Yeah. You know, why is Trump doing this? [audience and panel laughter] There's many layers, you know? And it, this is a strategic play and you have to sort of think about this in a layered way. Like there's a long term strategic play. There's a short term strategic play, there's a procedural strategic play, but that sort of bootstraps and brings in a much more moral and narrative rhetorical play. Procedural play. The short term strategic play has a lot to do with the midterm elections. Right, right. And also limiting people of color's ability to pick people who look like them as their representatives. Right. Because all of a sudden you're not only putting into question people's citizenship based on birth and turning this into a lineage thing where you have to bring me proof that your parents or their parents were born here or something like that, or were naturalized. So you're starting to put into question in a practical measure, people's access to the franchise, people's access to the voting booth. Right. And you're also starting to create a chain effect. So people are actually afraid to go to the voting booth. Right. And then you couple that with moving the migration of ICE. Now ICE is in the airports. Guaranteed by November, ICE will be in the voting booth, right? So you create this chilling effect. And then in terms of having representation that looks like you having people of color represent you in the US House of Representatives, your state representative. When you put birthright into question in this way, you're also gonna be able to challenge people who are running for office, people of color, running for office and say, well, you can't really run because you need to prove. And that is a rhetorical issue that we have seen being used already with both Harris and Obama, you know, because they were brown, Black people. Their birthright citizenship was, they were manipulating that rhetoric and that narrative.   [00:28:25] So this is not coming out of the outta left field. It's iterative and it's a it's rhetoric that has been, you know, percolating up for a long time. This is just a culminating moment. The long term strategy is really about white supremacy. We know that, you know, all of the social science shows that in 20 years this, the country will be a majority minority country, right? And people of color will have a huge amount of power in terms of, you know, in terms of the vote, right? Because of that, switch to majority minority and white people will be in the minority. And so, this is about, from a long term perspective, ensuring that certain people maintain their power as an electoral block. Right? So that's sort of like a long term electoral politics play. And then finally, the procedural issues are what's outstanding, okay? As Ming mentioned, if you are going to use procedure to overturn a constitutional amendment that is a, an astronomical feat to accomplish, right? Because you need two thirds of all of the representatives in Congress, and then on top of that, you need 75% of the states to ratify that process. So overturning a constitutional amendment is virtually impossible. But what we have here is trying to do the same thing. One person trying to do the same thing using the powers of the executive office. It is unprecedented. It is absurd. It has no legal viability, but it is a political moment where this man sees an opportunity because of the bias that we see in the judicial branch, in the court system. And that is being leveraged for the executive to to do something that is unprecedented and that is actually procedurally impossible, right? For one person by just signing a document all of a sudden disenfranchising 13 million people. That is not the democratic process. It's quite the opposite.   [00:30:38] Michael Harris: I just wanted to add to that. The Senate and the House of Representatives are both very narrowly controlled by the Republicans, and so it's really important to Trump to maintain that control. He'll only be able to continue doing these outrageous things by virtue of getting a rubber stamp from Congress. And so either house going the other way would put a stop sign in front of him and make it much more difficult for him to do all those things. All this money he's spending he would not be able to do that if Congress was actually active in doing it's job. Cause under the Constitution, spending is supposed to be controlled by the Congress, not by the Executive. So everything's upside down, but that's only working because Congress is allowing him to do that and not trying to stop him. If the Democrats are able to take over the Senate or the House where there's only a three or four seat margin right now that would make it much, much, much harder for him to pull these things off. And so anything he can do to get an advantage in that way I think is also part of what they're trying to do and trying to pull off.   [00:31:48] Ming Chen: One other thought, and you know, I'm trying very hard to not be professorly in the sense of using jargon or highfalutin terms, but I'm just curious, has anyone in this room heard the term perpetual foreigner before? A few of you have, I mean, I think it's really pertinent here. The first time I heard of this idea was when I started to learn from other Asian American law professors when I was still in college. I think that idea was that for certain groups of people, including Asian Americans, it doesn't matter whether you are actually a citizen by law or how many generations you've lived in the United States, right? So I'm a birthright citizen like Wong Kim Ark, but I think the first time I heard about it was, you know, this idea of Asian Americans not being able to be Americans socially in terms of belonging regardless of whether they are themselves, the child of citizens or immigrants and if they're the sixth generation children, right. I remember taking a Chinatown tour with David and is that where we are about six generations out for a lot of the descendants. So even if you were in the sixth generation that if you look Asian, that you will still be seen as being foreign. And so I think that idea has animated a lot of the work that I do. Like why it is that a lot of the work I do on race centers Asian Americans and then a lot of the work I do on immigrants centers, the naturalization process.   [00:33:16] But I think it's also important to recognize the breadth of that idea. Again, this idea of trying to blur the line between actuality, like what is real and what sounds like a fancy argument. Right. And I think what Lisa said, you know, her brief reference to the challenges against Barack Obama and Kamala Harris when they were running for a highest offices. You know, I think again, there's not, it's not a coincidence. I mean, to me that's the perpetual foreigner at work again. Because it's the idea that not only that Black people cannot possibly be the leader of this country, right? Sort of the, the figurehead of this country, but that for Barack Obama, the child of one international student on a lawful, probably f visa at the time, or that for Kamala Harris, the child of two lawful immigrants, that they cannot be birthright citizens that would be eligible for president. So there's a lot of commonality in that argument. And I think, you know, people forget, I think people assume that if you're talking about groups who are not Asian right, or who are not Latinx, that we're not talking about foreignness, we're only talking about race. And certainly we are talking about race, but we're not talking about it exclusively.   [00:34:33] Michael Harris: And then in addition to all of that is just the straight up racism of it. And that's supported by this notion of white supremacy. And what I mean when I say that, Lisa has touched on this already, is that there is a hierarchy of racial groups. And we're not all created equal. There's a hierarchy and the top group is, you already know, I don't have to say it, is the whites [laughter], and then below that are the other people like us who look different. And the reason there's, they're able to put these groups out there and get people to buy into that belief system is because we look different. And so this is why the perpetual thing is perpetual it's because we still look different. And that is a key part of the white supremacy. They still want to buy into this notion that white people are superior. And the only way they can make that work is by saying that people who look different are inferior.   [00:35:34] Annie Lee: I love this discussion because it's so real. And what you are saying essentially is you're talking about belonging and you're talking about power. Like who gets to belong in America? And then that is necessarily connected with who has power in America, who deserves to have power in America. But I know that we all belong in America and that we have power. So I wanna shift this conversation now to what can we do? And so beyond the courts everybody tune in next week. But beyond the courts, what is the role of community organizing, state and local policy advocacy? Public education in defending birthright citizenship and fighting against the attack on birthright citizenship is one sliver of everything that he has done. So many executive orders that came out on day one. So how, how do we, as everyday people fight white supremacy? What can we do when they are redistricting and trying to take away our franchise right before the midterm elections? What do we do when they're using courts that they've already packed with their federal society judges? And so what, what can an average regular person do? And Don I'm gonna go to you first.    [00:36:47] Don Tamaki: Let me say something in a very far less intellectual way than my colleagues here. This is a very old playbook. The playbook of demagoguery is very old. He said the old is humanity. And there are three elements to that playbook. One, appeal to prejudice, however, that is, race, skin, color, religion, whatever. Secondly, fear monger and scapegoat. And thirdly trafficking, conspiracy theories, fake news, false information, erasure of history. That's how you control the culture. And it worked in 1619. It worked in 1882. It worked in Germany in 1933. And it works today, you know, 2016, 2020. You know, when Chinese were blamed as spreaders of the Chinese virus. Asian Americans, when Mexicans were characterized as drug dealers and rapists when Jews and immigrants were portrayed as replacing good white people. This dehumanizing [of] people where one more Black man killed during an encounter with law enforcement barely evokes a shrug because it is so normal. It is so normal, folks, and so it works. And so, you have the candidate Trump running for office and say to a national audience that, to the people of Springfield, Ohio, that Haitian immigrants are eating your dogs and cats and getting away with it. Or the images of the Obamas transposed on cartoon apes. And this is really Jim Crow stuff. This is Antebellum stuff. And it's a recycling of the same playbook. And so the first part of organizing is being aware of what's going on. This is not a new thing. Okay, it's just a racial pathology that churns in one form or another, and it has an origin. It predates us. And so I, I think part of that is educating ourselves how everything is interconnected.   [00:38:58] And since we're talking about Black Asian solidarity, I'll just say a couple things. I mean, the civil rights movement had three triumphs that we all should remember. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of '65 began the dismantling of Jim Crow, which I, as I said, was a hundred year phenomenon following the end of the Civil War and the Immigration of Act of 1965. The third act. It ended as, you know, racist quotas. It prioritized family ties and skills and it greatly increased Asian immigration. As a result, the majority of AAPIs today are post 1965 Americans whose very presence here was made possible by the Black Civil Rights Movement. How many of us know that, you know? I mean, everybody focuses not everybody, but people tend to focus on their own peculiar predicament as if it's unique to our own situation. And in fact, it's all, quite connected. So I think part of this organizing process is realizing, you know, it's Martin Luther King, the oft quoted statement where he says we may have come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now. And especially in connection with what's happening and, and you're seeing it in different parts of the country where sure, immigrants are being targeted in Minneapolis, but then you have thousands of Minneapolitans that, you know, ordinary people, business folks, teachers, laborers, protesting in Sub-Zero weather against what, what happened? And, and yeah. You know what, can we do protest work? I hope everybody's out there on March 28th, you know, this Saturday on the No Kings March.    [00:40:51] Michael Harris: Not just protesting, running them out of town.    [00:40:55] Don Tamaki: Well, [audience and panel laughter] Gregory Bovino, Gregory Bovino, who was the leading charge? Gone. Kristi Noem. Gone.    [00:41:03] Michael Harris: Yes, right.    [00:41:05] Don Tamaki: 2000 ICE agents in Minneapolis reduced to much smaller numbers. That's right. Their plans then launching Ohio trashed. You know, so that's why you, so boycotts, boycotts work. Ask Elon Musk. Ask Target. Local elections, Michael mentioned the midterm elections. It is if we don't, if Democrats don't get back the House, the country's cooked. So, I mean, everybody should be involved one way or the other in that. Raising money, you know, we are part of a, a fundraising group called CAPA21, and there are other groups out there, but those are, those things are crucial to funnel money toward swing elections and critical races. The education part I think is essential. If you consider the velocity change in terms of the civil rights movement, Japanese American redress and reparations was a 20 year movement. And it was full of education of the public. Civil rights movement, same thing. The philosophy of change on marriage equality or LGBTQ rights and all those things happened because they became normal. They were, they started out as ideas that people thought were preposterous. You know, that'll never change.    [00:42:26] Michael Harris: Right.    [00:42:26] Don Tamaki: And Jim Crow will never end. And San Francisco can segregate Asian Americans within Japantown and Chinatown. It, it will never change. But that idea of change, which were thought preposterous happens. But it requires civic engagement. So just examples.   [00:42:46] Michael Harris: I want to amplify two things that Don said. One is there will be a march this Saturday a No Kings March, and it's really, really important for people to show up for that march. ‘Cause the one thing that's devastating to a government is to have its people out there visible on the streets saying what the government is doing is wrong. Because you can spin certain things, you can lie about certain things, but bodies in the streets you can't lie about. It's there and it's real. So that's one thing that's really important, really. But I would encourage all of you if you can, if you are able, please join us and come out on Saturday. The other thing I want to add to the Don's excellent list is there's a few groups in the Bay Area and in San Francisco that does postcards. And their strategy is they identify particular jurisdictions where it's a very close race and it'll be pivotal if a Democrat can win over a Republican, say in a House or maybe even like the Texas Senator race. That one's probably gonna be very close too. And they send postcards to people encouraging them to vote. Don't sit it out. And those extra votes can be the difference between winning and losing. And that might flip the House might flip the Senate. So those are some other additional items.    [00:44:11] Ming Chen: I think at a much more basic level, it's just like telling, telling your story, telling the story of America. Because, you know, when we talk about all these rhetorical tricks, I mean, I think what it means is that that narrative is gaining a lot of power. And so I think you have to reclaim the narrative, right? You have to tell the counter story which happens to be the real story of what's happening. This is something that I actually haven't talked about this publicly, but my daughter she's like on the brink of being 13, not yet a teenager. It made me really sad that she came back from her well-funded, pretty liberal public school about a month ago crying because she said that in her Mandarin Chinese class, there was a child who was saying that Asian people eat dogs. And then writing swastikas on the chalkboard and singing Nazi songs making fun of the women in the room, I guess they're girls in the room saying that they're all lesbian without knowing anything about them. And it just made me really profoundly sad because I'd like to think that a lot of ignorant narrative is because people don't know better, right? I mean, as an educator, I hope that education will simply solve it. And it made me really sad to hear that again. You know, I'm, I'm on the brink of Berkeley. I basically live in Berkeley, right? So one of the most densely populated PhD overeducated people in America. And to be three generations in and to still have this story being told in the classrooms was really distressing to me. And even more distressing that it isn't just the like Chinese people that eat dogs as being a stereotype from those who are not educated, but it's something she might have heard on TV from the highest offices in the land, right? Something she might've heard the vice president say, for example. And so I just think it's so important and doesn't take education, doesn't take a law degree, right? To be able to tell that story. And so I was really, really proud that my daughter you know, did file a complaint with the principal that she came home and told us about it. And you know, her two parents who are civil rights and immigration lawyers, [laughter] but also that she's been like talking to her classmates right, about the fact that that's not true. That's not right. She's been comforting the other kids in the classroom who don't share the same background that she does. And I feel like that kind of work is just as important.    [00:46:45] Michael Harris: I want to add something to that. We have to take note of the fact that a lot of these types of comments really vile, racist things and not just about Asians, it's also some of the things about Black people, young people are saying. Part of it is because it's very easy to say things like that online because you can do it anonymously and not have to, you know, stand up and back up your comments, so to speak. And another part of it is our culture. We gotta be real about this. When I was growing up, I'm sure you were told this too, as the country became more educated and got more exposed to people of color and more people got higher education, all this crazy stereotypical racist stuff would go away because people would know better. That's what they told me the whole time I was growing up and now we know that's not true [audience laughter] because the reverse is happening. It's growing because some people are making money by putting stuff like that online and selling t-shirts and hats and stuff like that. Or starting, you know, whatever they start. There's this guy, Alex Jones, who made millions of dollars doing that kind of stuff. So some people are making money off of it. Other people are just buying into that ideological tip and are using that to gain power and influence and clicks. So we just have to be aware that this is a current going on in our society right now. And it's happening and it's growing and we, we need to be aware of it and start thinking about ways how we can put it to rest. Cause it's, it's happening.    [00:48:30] Annie Lee: Thank you so much. I do wanna give our audience some time to ask any questions that you all might have. So if you have a burning question to ask our illustrious panel now is your opportunity.   [00:48:45] Audience member: I was wondering how does this with, with the rhetoric of, of Washington pushing for IDs for voting how will that impact on people's presence at the voting booths and validating their ability to vote?   [00:49:04] Michael Harris: I think what you're referring to is the Safeguard [SAVE America] Act is now in Congress, and if it's passed and signed by the president, then it'll become law. And what it will require is anyone who wants to vote will have to have a photo ID. And even if you registered, you have to prove you're a citizen. So those two steps are, I think, designed to suppress the vote of people of color. I mean, I think it's very straightforward. This has been what Republicans have been trying to do for ever since the case that Don just mentioned passed and they were able to start doing this stuff. And I agree. It goes back to the notion that in 20 years, America's going to be a majority minority country. There's gonna be more people of color than white people. And I think that I'm just gonna come out and say that freaks them out. It really freaks 'em out. I think a lot of them have lived their whole lifetime where only white people were in charge, running stuff, and they can envision a future not too far off where that might not be the case anymore. And that's scary. It shouldn't be. I mean, we're all the same. It's all gonna be, you know, and there's Black Republicans and Black Democrats and there's Asian Republican. I don't know why they're so freaked out about it, but but they are freaked out about it. And a lot of this is to suppress the vote so that they can continue to stay in power and will not have to give up the power that they would lose otherwise.   [00:50:35] Lisa Holder: Yeah, I mean, it's always been about limiting the franchise, right? And since the time that it expanded beyond white males with property, there's been a battle to keep it as limited as possible. You know? And when you think about what happened after the Civil War, after the 13th, 14th, and particularly the 15th Amendment were passed and African Americans were allowed to vote, you had a 100 year backlash. Where 10,000 African Americans were murdered and lynched. Most of those were people who were trying to mobilize their communities to enter into the franchise and exercise the right to vote. That's the retrenchment that we're seeing being reiterated right now. Right. And we know that during that period, there were all kinds of hoops that, for instance, Black people had to jump through because of those Black Codes where you had to, for instance, prove that you can read this particular statement. Right. Or, you know, just like all kinds of random hoops that you had to jump through. And so when we see these barriers, these gatekeepers, like, oh, you have to have an ID. If this birthright citizenship goes through, no, no, no you can't bring in your birth certificate. You know, we need some proof of your parent, of your lineage. Right. And it's really is combined with that narrative and that rhetorical aspect, that Ming was articulating because although in fact we are America. America looks like us, Americans look like us. The alternative narrative where white predominance is the point is always going to be pushed where no, no, no, we are different. We are not normal and we are not America. And so that's, that's the narrative piece that all of this leads to. And that's why this story of storytelling that Ming talked about is so important. And also it is so important to just constantly push back to resist, to vote. To run for office when you look like an American.   [00:52:45] Audience member: My question is, if the executive order passes, what can we do to resist? Because one of the things is it will also disenfranchise women because it's about proving your identity that matches your birth certificate. Right. And there are really so many people that will not have their names to match their identities. And so what can people do to, to, to counter if that should happen?   [00:53:11] Don Tamaki: The legislative answer? Well, there'll be court challenges, no doubt    [00:53:15] Audience member: but, but before, let's say the midterm election.   [00:53:18] Michael Harris: Call your representative, fax 'em, email 'em, get your friends to do that, because it's pending in Congress right now.   [00:53:25] Don Tamaki: But elections have consequences is the point. And it people who says, well my vote doesn't count, doesn't matter. Everybody, both parties the same. Elections have consequences. I, I guess the only other thing to remember, I keep, you know, repeating this, the solidarity and connectedness bears repeating because the story keeps recycling. It's very recycled story about voter suppression. You know, the Civil War ended in 1865, 12 years of reconstruction. Lincoln is assassinated shortly after during the beginning of reconstruction and thereafter, you know, a deal was struck in the contested election of 1876. Federal troops are withdrawn from the south and then the voter suppression comes in literacy tests, poll taxes.   [00:54:19] Annie Lee: Mm-hmm. Grandfather clauses.   [00:54:21] Don Tamaki: Yeah. I mean in Virginia. During reconstruction 140,000 formerly enslaved people registered to vote after the collapse of reconstruction it was reduced to 21,000. California had you know, poll taxes. Other states had literacy tests and whatever, and it's now repeating because folks don't like the results of an election. The answer is not to, you know, broaden your net and appeal to upfront (?) policy. The answer is to suppress voting, stop people from voting. And so again, it's a matter of awareness I think we have to realize the game plan. And it makes it so important about who is voted into the dials and levers of the controls that run the country. So that's critical.    [00:55:13] Ming Chen: I can jump onto that. go vote. But I think it's also, you know, it's early enough to say, get your documents in order. Right? Go and be ready to vote in a way that won't draw question, right? So you don't have to wait for the lawsuit. And I will say for that, as someone who spends most of my days working with 20 something year olds who move all over the country, a lot of it is about sort of get your ducks in order, right? So if you don't have a driver's license with the current address that matches your name, you can fix that now. So many people who don't have a normal ID because they never learn how to drive, right? So make sure you go get that document. You mentioned marriage, Anna, and I remember I moved to New York at the same time that I got married and trying to get my name on the document when I was it, you know, it's like this endless loop, right? Because you're getting a new ID because of your address. If you don't have that, you can't get your social security card, if you don't have that you can't validate the marriage certificate, right? There's just this endless loop. And you have to get all of that in order, right? So I think maybe there needs to be two parts to our voter mobilization this year, right? It's get yourself ready, sort of like arm up and then vote so that your vote will actually end up counting.    [00:56:33] Miko Lee: Please check out our website, kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about our show and our guests tonight. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world because your voices are important. Apex Express is produced by Ayame Keane-Lee, Anuj Vaidya, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Jalena Keane-Lee, Miko Lee, Miata Tan, Preti Mangala-Shekar and Swati Rayasam. Tonight's show was produced by me Miko Lee, and edited by Ayame Keane-Lee. Have a great night.   The post APEX Express – 4.2.26 – Surviving Through Solidarity. appeared first on KPFA.

The House Judiciary Committee wants to change the US Attorney statute to say what Attorney General Bondi claimed it did in court. This would involve the Senate voluntarily surrendering their power to vote on nominees, so … lotsa luck. Back in New Jersey, prosecutors say they'll seek superseding indictments in cases with Alina Habba's name on them, to remove the stink of illegitimacy.The DOJ has quietly settled a trollsuit filed by red states and rightwing trolls, including Robert Kennedy, alleging social media censorship by the Biden administration. The Supreme Court already dropkicked this case once, so the parties agreed to simply declare victory and go home.And Sam Bankman-Fried finds new ways to piss off judges and be sooooo weird, this time with help from his mom.MAIN SHOW:The DOJ settled a bogus lawsuit filed by former national security advisor Mike Flynn. His malicious prosecution claims had already been tossed by a federal judge, but she let him amend his complaint again, and by then Trump was back in the White House. Is this a new template for MAGA criminals to back the truck up to the Treasury and start filling it with taxpayer cash? The January 6 defendants sure seem to think so! We'll compare a newly filed case by rioters with a suit filed by pardoned Proud Boys.And we've got a deep dive into the birthright citizenship case Trump v. Barbara, which will be argued at the Supreme Court this Wednesday.Kennedy v. Bidenhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67089647/kennedy-v-biden/?order_by=descMissouri v. Bidenhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-biden/?order_by=descUS v. Bankman-Friedhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/united-states-v-bankman-friedTarrio v. US [Proud Boys Bivens Suit]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70474277/tarrio-v-united-states-of-americaSullivan v. US [J6ers FTCA Suit]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73101995/sullivan-v-united-states/Flynn v. US [Flynn FTCA]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66930673/flynn-v-united-statesDred Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3231372247892780026US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898)https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765Indian Citizenship Act of 1924https://www.archives.gov/files/historical-docs/doc-content/images/indian-citizenship-act-1924.pdfIndian Law Scholars' Amicus Brief [via SCOTUS]https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/399370/20260226125541217_Barbara%20Amicus%20Brief.pdfThe Nationality Act of 1940 [student Note]https://www.jstor.org/stable/1335062Trump v. Barbarahttps://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-365.htmlShow Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Day in Legal History: Hiram Rhodes RevelsOn February 25, 1870, Hiram Rhodes Revels was sworn in as the first African American to serve in the United States Senate. His election came during the turbulent Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War, a period defined by constitutional change and political uncertainty. Revels represented Mississippi, a former Confederate state that had only recently been readmitted to the Union. In a moment heavy with symbolism, he filled the Senate seat once held by Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy. The contrast between the two men reflected the profound transformation taking place in American law and government.Revels' swearing-in came after the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which abolished slavery, guaranteed equal protection, and protected voting rights regardless of race. His presence in the Senate gave tangible meaning to those constitutional promises. Yet his path to office was not without challenge. Some senators argued that he did not meet the Constitution's nine-year citizenship requirement, claiming that the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford had denied Black Americans citizenship before the Civil War. Supporters countered that the 14th Amendment had settled the question of citizenship, making Revels eligible to serve. The Senate ultimately voted to seat him, affirming the legal force of the Reconstruction Amendments.Revels served only a brief term, but his impact was lasting. His election marked a rare window in American history when federal power was actively used to expand civil and political rights in the South. Although Reconstruction would eventually give way to decades of segregation and disenfranchisement, February 25, 1870 stands as a reminder of a constitutional moment when the nation attempted to redefine equality under the law.The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission released its first major update to its enforcement manual in eight years, outlining a new vision focused on fairness and transparency. SEC Chairman Paul Atkins described the revisions as overdue and said the agency will now review the manual annually. The updated 115-page guide provides clearer direction on how enforcement investigations will proceed and what options are available to individuals and companies under scrutiny.One key change involves the Wells process, which notifies potential defendants that SEC staff intend to recommend enforcement action. Under the revised policy, recipients of a Wells notice will have four weeks to submit a written response. After filing that response, they may request a meeting with senior leadership in the Division of Enforcement to argue against pursuing charges or to present their perspective on the case.Atkins has previously indicated that reforming the Wells process is a priority, emphasizing the need for accurate and carefully considered enforcement actions. Enforcement Division Director Meg Ryan also noted that a persuasive Wells response can influence whether commissioners ultimately approve a case. The manual further reinstates the ability of settling parties to request waivers from automatic industry bars that can follow enforcement actions. In addition, it introduces clearer guidance on how cooperation may reduce penalties and explains how the SEC may coordinate with criminal authorities. Overall, the agency says the revisions aim to clarify how it enforces federal securities laws and strengthen public confidence in the process.SEC Lays Out New Enforcement Vision In Revised Guidelines - Law360Paramount Skydance has submitted a revised proposal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, as a bidding battle with Netflix continues. The new offer follows the expiration of a seven-day waiver period under WBD's existing merger agreement with Netflix. For Paramount's deal to move forward, WBD's board must first determine that the revised bid qualifies as a “Company Superior Proposal” under the Netflix agreement. After that, a four-business-day match period would need to pass, the Netflix agreement would have to be terminated, and a new definitive agreement would need to be signed with Paramount.While the board reviews the updated proposal, Paramount said it will keep its tender offer in place and continue urging shareholders to reject what it calls the less favorable Netflix transaction. The rivalry between the bidders has spilled into public statements, with Paramount criticizing the structure of the Netflix deal as potentially reducing shareholder value. Netflix has pushed back, accusing Paramount of mischaracterizing regulatory issues and focusing on appearances rather than results.WBD confirmed it received the revised bid but reiterated that its current merger agreement with Netflix remains active and that the board still recommends the Netflix deal. Specific terms of Paramount's updated offer were not disclosed, though it recently added financial safeguards, regulatory commitments, and an offer to cover the breakup fee if WBD exits the Netflix agreement. Netflix's agreement to acquire WBD's studio and streaming operations is valued at about $82.7 billion, while Paramount's competing proposal to purchase the entire company is valued at roughly $108.4 billion.Paramount Revises WBD Offer As Netflix Bid War Goes On - Law360​​A federal judge has temporarily barred prosecutors from freely searching devices seized from a Washington Post reporter during a national security leak investigation. The FBI searched reporter Hannah Natanson's home in January and took electronic devices as part of a probe into the alleged disclosure of government secrets. Natanson, who has reported on President Donald Trump's efforts to dismiss large numbers of federal employees, has not been charged with any crime.U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter ruled that the government may not conduct an unrestricted review of the seized materials. Instead, he said the court will oversee the examination of the devices to ensure that journalistic protections are respected while still allowing investigators to seek relevant evidence. Porter rejected the Justice Department's request to let prosecutors carry out a broad, unsupervised search.Justice Department attorneys had argued that reviewing the materials was essential to a criminal investigation involving national security concerns. They proposed using a separate FBI “filter team” to screen the data and remove irrelevant content before investigators accessed it. The judge's order reflects an effort to balance press freedom with the government's authority to pursue evidence in sensitive cases.US judge blocks search of Washington Post reporter's devices | ReutersA California woman is set to testify in Los Angeles that her early use of Instagram and YouTube harmed her mental health, in a closely watched trial against Meta and Google. The plaintiff, identified as Kaley G.M., says she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, and later struggled with depression and body dysmorphia. Her attorneys argue the companies deliberately designed their platforms to attract and retain young users despite being aware of potential psychological risks.The case is part of a broader international push to address the impact of social media on children, with some countries already imposing restrictions. Earlier phases of the trial focused on what the companies knew about the effects of their platforms on young users and how they targeted that demographic. Now the proceedings are turning to Kaley's personal experiences and whether the platforms substantially contributed to her mental health challenges.To succeed, her legal team must prove that the design or operation of the platforms was a significant factor in causing or worsening her condition. Meta has pointed to her history of family instability and alleged abuse as alternative explanations for her struggles. Her lawyer, however, referenced internal company research suggesting that teens facing difficult circumstances were more likely to use Instagram compulsively.The lawsuit also challenges features such as autoplay videos, endless scrolling, “like” buttons, and beauty filters, which the plaintiff claims encouraged prolonged use and distorted self-image. YouTube's defense argues that she did not fully use available safety tools and presented data indicating her recent average viewing time was relatively limited.Woman suing Meta, YouTube over social media addiction takes the stand at trial | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this inspiring conversation, I sit down with Kathryn Sandford, seasoned personal brand and leadership coach, to explore what it truly means to go from invisible to influential. Kathryn draws on her rich background in teaching, recruitment, and government to show professionals—especially introverts and quiet achievers—how to find their voice, build credibility, and shine without being loud.We talk about the power of energy in communication, why self-trust and self-kindness are the foundations of influence, and how relevance is a muscle we can train at every stage of our careers. Kathryn also shares practical networking tips, storytelling strategies that help you stand out, and the affirmation she lives by: “I am enough.”If you've ever wondered how to navigate career pivots, project confidence without people-pleasing, or become visible in a noisy world while staying true to yourself, this episode will encourage you to take that courageous next step.Episode HighlightsKathryn's introvert–extrovert balance and reframing the idea of a “social butterfly.”Lessons from teaching: energy awareness, clear boundaries, and credibility in communication.The turning point that led Kathryn out of teaching and into leadership coaching.How to pivot careers with courage and strategy, especially later in life.Building a personal brand through self-awareness, storytelling, and reputation.Why asking others to describe you in three words can unlock your strengths.The “relevance muscle” and how to strengthen it for future success.Key TakeawaysEnergy speaks louder than words — how you show up is as important as what you say.Boundaries build trust — being clear and consistent creates credibility and influence.Self-trust is the foundation of leadership — start by believing I am enough.Personal brand = reputation + influence + impact — know your story and tell it well.Relevance is a muscle — it needs ongoing practice, upskilling, and self-reflection.Networking made simple — approach one or three people, never two.Storytelling sets you apart — ordinary stories, told with authenticity, make you memorable.Memorable Quotable“The most powerful thing you can say to yourself is: I am enough.” — Kathryn SandfordResources & LinksConnect with Kathryn Sandford on LinkedIn.Learn  about Kathryn Sandford's programs: Invisible to Influential and 1:1 Leadership Coaching.Follow Serena on LinkedIn. Visit serenalow.com.au for the first step to ending your visibility struggle.Enjoyed this episode?Subscribe to The Quiet Warrior Podcast and leave a 5-star review—it helps us reach even more introverts and quiet achievers who are ready to step into visibility with confidence.This episode was edited by Aura House Productions

"Jack Riccardi talks ICE on the east side, "collaborationists," conservatives know their opposites better and remembering Sandford and Son actor Demond Wilson."

Snoop Dogg's granddaughter dead. Lamont from SANFORD AND SON dead at 79. Breakdown of todays NBA games plus more.

Dave Sandford (@davesandford) is a renowned wildlife photographer and polar bear guide.What happens when a celebrated photographer steps out from behind the lens and into a new role? In this episode, Dave shares his journey through a 30-year career, from capturing stunning images of polar bears to navigating the evolving photography industry. We discuss imposter syndrome, the power of storytelling, and finding joy in guiding others to connect with nature. How do we adapt, stay inspired, and remain true to our creative passions?Expect to Learn:The importance of focusing on creating fewer, high-quality imagesHow to navigate shifts in the photography industry and make yourself more competitiveHow even seasoned professionals deal with self-doubt and push through itHow stepping into adjacent roles can open new doors in your creative careerHow to identify what makes your perspective or skills uniqueDave's Website: https://www.davesandfordphotos.com/Sponsors:Thanks to Tamron for sponsoring this episode! Kick off the New Year with up to $300 off select lenses during their Winter Savings event, now through February 8, 2026. Upgrade your gear with exceptional lenses for Sony E-mount, Nikon Z-mount, and FUJIFILM X-mount mirrorless cameras. Explore here at www.tamron-americas.com Thanks to WhiteWall for being our secondary sponsor this episode! They're the top choice for photographers who want the highest-quality prints: https://www.whitewall.com/Our Links:Join our subreddit where you can share stories and ask questions:https://www.reddit.com/r/photographermindset/Subscribe to TPM's Youtube page and watch full length episodes: https://www.youtube.com/thephotographermindset/Make a donation via PayPal for any amount you feel is equal to the value you receive from our podcast episodes! Donations help with the fees related to hosting the show: https://paypal.me/podcasttpm?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_USThanks for listening!Go get shooting, go get editing, and stay focused.@sethmacey@mantis_photography@thephotographermindsetSupport the show

16-year-old James from Sandford calls in to tell Kaz and Tubes all about the Beyond Music concert he’s organised for tonight.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Recorded live at MAPIC 2025 in Cannes, this episode features a rare deep-dive with Ian Sandford, President of Eurofund Group, one of Europe's most influential retail property operators. With more than €2B in assets across Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany and the UK, Eurofund sits at the centre of the sector's biggest shifts.--------*Welcome to the official  channel of THE RETAIL PODCAST, the leading community for global retail leaders, innovators, and changemakers.*If you are struggling to stay relevant in a rapidly evolving industry, looking for insights from major conferences like NRF, Shoptalk, and EuroCIS, or aiming to connect your digital funnels to physical events with measurable ROI, this channel is designed for you.➡️ Hosted by Alex Rezvan and joined by some of the most respected voices in the sector, The Retail Podcast brings sharp, actionable insights from industry veterans with backgrounds at Microsoft and Verizon, where projects worth over $1.5 billion were directed. Our mission is to help retailers and businesses that sell to retailers anticipate change, embrace technology, and unlock new growth opportunities.Here you will discover exclusive interviews with executives and innovators, coverage of global retail conferences, analysis of technology and AI trends, in-depth explorations of fashion, grocery, luxury, and eCommerce, and thought leadership that keeps your strategy relevant all year long. As part of the RetailNews.AI ecosystem, this channel does more than report the news—it shapes the conversation on the future of retail.*Subscribe now and activate notifications so you never miss the strategies, stories, and signals defining tomorrow's retail.*--------

We Like Shooting Episode 638 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries, Primary Arms, Night Fision, Die Free Co., Mitchell Defense, Rost Martin, and Swampfox Optics   Welcome to the We Like Shooting Show, episode 638! Our cast tonight is Jeremy Pozderac, Aaron Krieger, Nick Lynch, and me Shawn Herrin, welcome to the show! Sponsor Black Friday Deals - Gear Chat Nick - 1911 Project News 1911 project update Shawn - Lights Out for Bright Lights Cloud Defensive EPL Shawn - TitanX: The Future of Laser Training Weapons The article presents the TitanX, a new inert training pistol designed for realistic dry fire training, incorporating features like a resetting trigger and laser for instant feedback. It aims to improve shooting skills through advanced training analysis via the MantisX app. The introduction of the TitanX may enhance training for gun owners across all skill levels, providing a cost-effective tool for skill development while maintaining a focus on familiarity with popular firearm models. Bullet Points Shawn - Comparing Shooters Global SG Timer Models: GO vs 2 Shooters Global has launched two new shot timers, the budget-friendly SG Timer GO and the premium SG Timer 2, each designed for different types of shooters. Both come with advanced smart sensor technology and integrate with the Drills app for enhanced training features. The SG Timer GO is priced around $164.99, while the SG Timer 2 costs $329.99, reflecting their respective target markets. The article highlights a Black Friday sale for potential buyers. The introduction of these timers is likely to attract various shooters, offering more accessible options for improving training techniques. Shawn - Walther Halts PPK Series Production Walther Arms, Inc. has suspended production of its PPK, PPK/S, and PP handgun lines as part of a long-term modernization program, marking a pause in nearly a century of manufacturing. This break is intended to update the production processes while maintaining the traditional characteristics of the firearms. Existing stock will become the last available units for an extended period, potentially increasing interest and demand among collectors and users of the PP-series. No timeline for the release of updated models has been provided. Shawn - Primary Arms Launches Exciting Golden Ticket Giveaway Primary Arms is hosting a significant giveaway event from November 24 to December 1, 2025, offering customers a chance to win one of five premium LaRue rifle packages valued over $4,000 each with every purchase made. This promotion aims to enhance customer engagement during their Black Friday sales and may stimulate interest and participation within the gun community. Savage1r - Gideon Optics swag bag Gun Fights Step right up for "Gun Fights," the high-octane segment hosted by Nick Lynch, where our cast members go head-to-head in a game show-style showdown! Each contestant tries to prove their gun knowledge dominance. It's a wild ride of bids, bluffs, and banter—who will come out on top? Tune in to find out!   Agency Brief Agency171.com Dred Scott v. Sandford  "If Black people were citizens, they'd have the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went." That's not me talking. That's Chief Justice Roger Taney in 1857, explaining why the Supreme Court couldn't let Black Americans be citizens. Think about that. The Court admitted the Second Amendment was an individual right. They just didn't want certain people exercising it. So they ruled an entire race had zero constitutional rights. This is the story of how fear of an armed population led to the worst Supreme Court decision in history—and why it matters for every gun owner today. What's really on the line: Can the government decide who counts as "the people" with rights? If courts can strip rights from one group, who's next? Will slavery expand nationwide, or can it be contained? Does the Second Amendment mean individuals can bear arms, or just militias? Hidden stake: Southern states terrified of armed free Black people The entire future of constitutional rights—and the Union itself—hangs on one family's lawsuit. 1846: Dred and Harriet Scott sue for freedom in St. Louis Their owner took them to free territory (Illinois + Wisconsin) Missouri law = "once free, always free" Their real motivation: Keep their daughters from being sold away 1850: They win at trial. Declared free. 1852: Missouri Supreme Court reverses—protecting slavery politics over precedent 1856: Case hits U.S. Supreme Court Nation boiling over slavery and states' rights 7 of 9 justices appointed by pro-slavery presidents Initially planning narrow ruling—then they get greedy THE CONSPIRACY: President-elect Buchanan secretly contacts Justice Catron: "When will you rule?" Catron leaks insider info back Buchanan pressures Justice Grier: "Join the Southern majority" Grier caves March 4, 1857: Buchanan's inauguration—he promises the Court will "settle" everything He already knows the outcome March 6, 1857—THE BOMBSHELL: 80-year-old Chief Justice Taney delivers a 200-page ruling designed to end the debate forever: Black people can never be citizens—not even free Black people in Northern states They have "no rights which the white man was bound to respect" Congress can't restrict slavery anywhere—Missouri Compromise unconstitutional Here's the 2A moment: Taney writes that if Black people were citizens, they'd have the right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went." He uses this as proof they can't be citizens—the idea of armed Black Americans was too dangerous. What this reveals: The Court understood the 2A as an individual right, not just militia They feared an armed population—specifically armed Black Americans Gun control was a tool of racial oppression from day one They chose to strip citizenship rather than allow armed equality THE EXPLOSION: North erupts in fury Republicans see it as proof of "slave power conspiracy" (they're right) Abraham Lincoln rises: "What's next—making free states into slave states?" Four years later: Civil War begins 600,000 dead THE FIX: 13th Amendment (1865): Abolishes slavery 14th Amendment (1868): Overturns Dred Scott—declares all Americans are citizens This becomes the foundation for applying the Bill of Rights—including the 2A—to state governments THE 2A CONNECTION Why every gun rights advocate should know this case: ✓ SCOTUS explicitly tied citizenship to the right to bear arms—they admitted it was individual, not militia-based ✓ The Court's fear of armed citizens drove their decision—they'd rather strip citizenship than allow armed Black Americans ✓ Gun control as racial control—disarming populations has always been about power, not safety ✓ The 14th Amendment's purpose: Overturn Dred Scott and protect rights against state infringement ✓ McDonald v. Chicago (2010): Supreme Court incorporated 2A against states by citing the 14th Amendment's reversal of Dred Scott and how Southern states disarmed free Black people THE 14TH AMENDMENT - Ratified July 9, 1868—specifically to overturn Dred Scott Section 1 (the critical part): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." What this did: ✅ Overturned Dred Scott — Declared ALL people born in the U.S. are citizens ✅ Protected rights against state infringement — States can't "abridge the privileges or immunities" of citizens ✅ Applied the Bill of Rights to states — Before this, only the federal government was bound by the Bill of Rights ✅ Made the 2A enforceable against states — This is why state gun bans can be challenged in federal court The 14th Amendment's Framers on the Right to Bear Arms: During congressional debates over the 14th Amendment, Republicans repeatedly cited Southern states disarming free Black people as a reason the amendment was necessary: Senator Jacob Howard said the amendment would protect "the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as...the right to keep and to bear arms" Congressmen cited "Black Codes" that banned Black Americans from owning firearms The amendment was designed to prevent states from doing what Dred Scott enabled: stripping constitutional rights based on race Modern Impact: McDonald v. Chicago (2010) — Supreme Court incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments Justice Alito's majority opinion: Cited the 14th Amendment as overturning Dred Scott Discussed how Southern states used gun control to oppress freed slaves after the Civil War Concluded the right to bear arms is a "fundamental right" protected by the 14th Amendment's guarantee that states can't abridge the "privileges or immunities" of citizens The direct line: Dred Scott says Black people aren't citizens and can't have rights (including arms) Civil War fought partly over this 14th Amendment passes to reverse Dred Scott and protect all citizens' rights 150+ years later, that same amendment is used to strike down state gun bans THE LESSON: The Constitution protects "the people"—not "some people." When courts decide rights don't apply to certain groups, nobody's rights are secure.

A Supreme Court decision that sent shockwaves across America. Dred Scott v Sandford, 1857. Who was the Chief Justice responsible for the decision? On what grounds did he rule that Dred Scott, and by extension all African Americans, was not a citizen of the US? Don is joined by renowned historian Kate Masur, author of "Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement".Edited by Aidan Lonergan. Producer is Freddy Chick.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  You can take part in our listener survey here.All music from Epidemic Sounds.American History Hit is a History Hit podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sarah Isgur and David French walk listeners through the entire history of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, some of the biggest cases ... all prompted by one listener question. Plus: Grifter Sarah makes a reappearance. The Agenda:—Understanding substantive due process—Supreme Court to consider whether to hear challenge to same-sex marriage on November 7—Dred Scott v. Sandford being the worst decision ever—Scaring our libertarian friends with Slaughter-House cases—The dissent everyone knows was right—Liberty to brutally oppress your workers—‘Grown-ass men' and their group chats—The Based Ritual Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

L. Joy opens class with reflections on Brooklyn's Dance Africa festival and the importance of taking a break, before turning to the central theme: the role—and limits—of the courts in advancing justice. She notes how people increasingly view the judiciary as the ultimate arbiter of the nation's values, citing recent Supreme Court decisions and public reactions. However, L. Joy cautions that courts have historically upheld the status quo, especially for Black and marginalized communities, referencing landmark cases from Dred Scott v. Sandford, Brown v. Board of Education and Mendez v. Westminster. She brings Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) to the front of the class to break down the four major pillars that span their work: political participation, criminal justice, economic justice, and educational equity.

It's a messy looking weekend of weather for most of us so what better time to do some thinking about design and decorating, award winning interior designer - and design teacher - Sylvia Sandford is with me to answer any of your questions.

Nate celebrates a major milestone with Episode 300 of the podcast. He welcomes the only two coaches in the 52-year history of the Oneonta Girls Soccer program: Helen Sandford and Jerry Mackey. Helen started the program in 1973 and led it for 30 years, while Jerry has continued to build on her legacy, guiding the Jackets to sustained success, including a state title in 2013. Helen looks back on the Title IX era, her approach to coaching, and why the success of her players has always meant more than the spotlight. It's a rare chance to hear from one of the area's true coaching pioneers. 

This Day in Legal History: Fourteenth Amendment RatifiedOn July 28, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was officially adopted, reshaping the legal and constitutional landscape of the nation. Ratified in the wake of the Civil War, it was one of the Reconstruction Amendments designed to integrate formerly enslaved people into American civic life. Section 1 of the amendment granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," effectively nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Black people could not be citizens.The amendment also introduced two foundational legal principles: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. These clauses placed new limitations on state governments, barring them from infringing on individual rights and mandating that laws be applied equally to all people. The Due Process Clause would later become a cornerstone in expanding civil liberties, providing the basis for numerous Supreme Court decisions involving privacy, marriage, and bodily autonomy. The Equal Protection Clause became instrumental in the fight against racial segregation and discrimination, notably underpinning Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which dismantled “separate but equal” doctrine in public education.Initially resisted by many Southern states, the amendment's ratification was made a condition for reentry into the Union. Over time, its scope grew far beyond the post-Civil War context, influencing legal battles on gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and immigration. It also played a critical role in the doctrine of incorporation, through which many protections in the Bill of Rights became applicable to state governments. The Fourteenth Amendment remains one of the most litigated and interpreted sections of the Constitution, central to the American concept of civil rights and liberties.A&O Shearman has postponed the start date for some of its incoming associates until January, according to a source familiar with the matter. The firm typically offers new associates a choice between two start dates and provides a salary advance to those opting for the later one. The decision comes amid broader industry trends of delaying associate onboarding as a cost-management strategy in response to uneven client demand, despite overall revenue growth among top firms.Formed through the May 2024 merger of Shearman & Sterling and Allen & Overy, A&O Shearman is now the fourth-largest law firm by revenue. While the firm's revenue has benefited from broader sector gains, it faces challenges tied to economic uncertainty and trade tensions. Internally, a cohort of associates had reportedly resisted leadership shortly before the firm joined other legal powerhouses in agreements involving legal services to President Trump—moves seen as efforts to fend off sanctions and settle federal investigations into workplace diversity practices. The firm also experienced a recent exodus in its London office, with nine lawyers, including eight associates, departing in June.A&O Shearman Pushes Start Date to January for Some AssociatesA New York state appeals court has ruled that social media companies cannot be held legally responsible for the 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 people dead. The court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Reddit are shielded by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which grants online platforms immunity from liability for user-generated content. The lawsuit alleged that these platforms were designed to addict and radicalize users, including the shooter, Payton Gendron.Justice Stephen Lindley, writing for the 3-2 majority, argued that holding platforms liable would threaten the open nature of the internet and contradict Congress's intent to foster innovation and limit government interference. He acknowledged the horrific nature of the shooting and the hateful content that influenced it but warned that allowing liability would cause the internet to collapse into tightly restricted message boards.Dissenting justices contended that the platforms actively pushed extremist content through targeted algorithms, suggesting that this behavior went beyond neutral hosting. Other platforms used by Gendron, including Amazon, Discord, 4chan, Snap, and Twitch, were also named in the lawsuit. Gendron is currently serving a life sentence without parole after pleading guilty to state charges, and he still faces federal charges that may lead to the death penalty.Social media companies not liable for 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, New York court rules | ReutersA federal judge in Massachusetts has reaffirmed a nationwide injunction blocking President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to limit birthright citizenship. Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that only a nationwide halt could fully protect the coalition of 22 Democratic-led states challenging the policy, rejecting arguments from the Trump administration that a narrower ruling would suffice following a recent Supreme Court decision. The executive order, signed on Trump's first day back in office in January, directed federal agencies to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.Judge Sorokin found that allowing the policy to take effect even in some states would harm immigrant families and disrupt federal benefits programs like Medicaid. Plaintiffs argued it would create a confusing and unfair patchwork of citizenship rules and overwhelm states not enforcing the order. The Trump administration maintained that the Constitution was being misinterpreted, and signaled plans to appeal.Although the Supreme Court recently limited the use of nationwide injunctions, it allowed exceptions under certain conditions—exceptions Sorokin found applicable here. Meanwhile, a separate federal appeals court in California also ruled that Trump's executive order violated the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and blocked it nationwide.US judge reaffirms nationwide injunction blocking Trump executive order on birthright citizenship | ReutersCalifornia has dropped plans to require Internet service providers (ISPs) to offer $15-per-month broadband plans to low-income residents, following pressure from both the Trump administration and major telecom companies. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, who led the effort, said her office was warned that enforcing such a law could jeopardize California's access to $1.86 billion in federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funding. The administration's revised BEAD rules prohibit states from setting explicit or implicit broadband pricing requirements.Despite earlier court wins by New York upholding a similar law, Boerner chose to pull the bill after the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) confirmed that even applying for BEAD funds could exempt ISPs from state pricing rules. Advocates and lawmakers criticized the move as a giveaway to large corporations, arguing it undermines efforts to ensure affordable internet access. Boerner had already watered down the bill in negotiations with ISPs, reducing required speeds and allowing ISPs to handle eligibility verification—both points that drew backlash from digital equity groups.Advocates argued the BEAD funding was intended for new broadband infrastructure, while the California bill focused on existing networks, meaning the NTIA's restrictions shouldn't apply. Critics also pointed out that the proposed speed standards were below the federal definition of broadband, and that delegating verification to ISPs risked privacy and access issues. While Boerner acknowledged the need for affordable broadband, she said the risk of losing billions in federal funds wasn't worth pushing the mandate. A separate Senate bill aims to encourage, but not require, ISPs to offer low-cost plans by linking them to subsidies.California backs down to Trump admin, won't force ISPs to offer $15 broadband - Ars Technica This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: 14th Amendment RatifiedOn July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified—one of the most sweeping and hotly contested legal transformations in American history. Drafted during Reconstruction, its promise was bold: birthright citizenship, due process, and equal protection under the law. In theory, it was the legal nail in the coffin for Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision that declared Black people could never be citizens. In practice? A more complicated story.The amendment aimed to redefine American citizenship in the wake of emancipation—but its language proved a double-edged sword. While Section 1 is the cornerstone of modern civil rights litigation, it was also the platform for corporate personhood and Lochner-era judicial activism. The same equal protection clause used to dismantle segregation in Brown v. Board (1954) was first deployed to protect railroad companies from state taxes. So the question isn't whether the Fourteenth Amendment mattered—it's whether it served the people it was meant to protect.Southern states ratified the amendment under duress, often as a condition for rejoining the Union. The Supreme Court, for decades, narrowed its reach, refusing to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states and sidestepping racial injustice entirely. Only in the 20th century—through selective incorporation and the civil rights movement—did its full potential begin to manifest.Today, the Fourteenth Amendment remains a constitutional battleground: cited in cases on abortion, marriage equality, affirmative action, and beyond. But the fight over its meaning is far from settled. July 9 isn't just a date on the calendar—it's a reminder that even the most powerful legal language is hostage to interpretation, and that equality under the law has always been a work in progress.Retired NBA star Charles Oakley is seeking sanctions against Madison Square Garden (MSG) and Randy Mastro, a top NYC official and MSG attorney, alleging they made false statements in a long-running legal battle over Oakley's 2017 ejection from a Knicks game. In a recent court filing, Oakley accused Mastro of repeatedly lying to the court about MSG owner James Dolan's involvement, despite Dolan admitting under oath that he played a role. Oakley wants the judge to award attorney fees, censure Mastro, and require him to attend an ethics class.This move follows MSG's own motion last month asking the court to sanction Oakley and his lawyers for allegedly promoting a "false narrative" and to dismiss the case. The dueling motions are part of an eight-year legal dispute that began after Oakley was forcibly removed from MSG. Oakley, a Knicks fan favorite from 1988–1998, has claimed excessive force was used during the incident and has recently amended his lawsuit to focus on assault and battery.Ex-NBA player seeks sanctions against Madison Square Garden, lawyer Mastro | ReutersLaw school deans across Texas are pushing back against a proposal to eliminate the requirement that attorneys graduate from American Bar Association (ABA)-accredited schools. In a letter to the Texas Supreme Court, deans from eight of the state's ten ABA-accredited law schools argue that scrapping the rule—which has been in place since 1983—would hinder graduates' ability to practice in other states and reduce transparency for students and consumers.The court's review of the ABA requirement follows a similar move by Florida, where justices cited the ABA's paused diversity mandate and political activity as reasons for reconsideration. Critics of the proposal warn that removing ABA accreditation could isolate Texas law schools, make legal education less portable, and ultimately increase costs for students.Notably, the dean of the University of Texas School of Law, Robert Chesney, did not join the group letter. Instead, he suggested the court explore alternative or supplementary accreditation pathways. Texas A&M's law dean, Robert Ahdieh, also withheld endorsement but emphasized the importance of maintaining national recognition for Texas law degrees. The state's high court, composed entirely of Republican-elected judges, has not indicated when it will issue a decision.Eliminating ABA accreditation for Texas law schools is flawed proposal, some deans say | ReutersA U.S. district judge temporarily halted the bankruptcy sale of genetic testing company 23andMe, giving California three days to argue that the deal violates its genetic privacy law. California had earlier failed to convince a bankruptcy judge to block the $305 million sale to TTAM Research, a nonprofit founded by 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki.The state contends that transferring genetic data to TTAM without explicit consumer consent breaches California's Genetic Information Privacy Act. With roughly 1.8 million California residents among 23andMe's 10 million users, the state argues the sale could lead to unauthorized data transfers.Bankruptcy Judge Brian Walsh previously ruled that consumers could delete their data post-sale, minimizing potential harm. TTAM has promised to honor 23andMe's existing privacy policies. A federal court hearing on whether to extend the pause is scheduled for Thursday. The bankruptcy follows declining demand and a major 2023 data breach at 23andMe.Judge briefly pauses 23andMe bankruptcy sale amid California's appeal | ReutersThe IRS has agreed—at least for now—not to penalize churches for discussing political candidates or campaigns during religious services, provided that such speech is framed as a matter of faith. This move comes as part of a proposed consent decree intended to resolve a constitutional challenge to the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law barring 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations—including churches—from participating in political campaigns.The settlement, filed in a Texas federal court, reinterprets the Johnson Amendment narrowly: religious speech about politics during worship services is not “political intervention” if it occurs through traditional, faith-based communication. The IRS now claims enforcing the Johnson Amendment against such speech could raise serious First Amendment concerns, especially if it treats politically silent religious organizations more favorably than outspoken ones.Critics warn this reinterpretation risks turning churches into tax-sheltered political operations. Diane Yentel of the Council of Nonprofits argues it opens the door to tax-deductible donations for de facto political activity—effectively subsidized by taxpayers who may disagree.While the lawsuit originally sought to strike down the Johnson Amendment entirely, this settlement attempts to sidestep the constitutional minefield through interpretation, not invalidation. But here's the legal paradox: the IRS is effectively rewriting statutory law without legislative input, relying on what it calls "constitutional avoidance." That raises real questions—can an executive agency unilaterally redefine the scope of a congressional statute to avoid a constitutional fight? Or is this a policy pivot masquerading as judicial restraint?For now, the constitutional showdown is paused. But if this consent decree is approved, it will mark a major shift in the legal boundaries between church, state, and campaign finance—without any actual change to the law's text. Whether that holds up under future scrutiny remains very much an open question.IRS Says Religious Groups Can Discuss Politics During Services (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

THE GREATER GOOD!! Go to http://thrivemarket.com/ReelRejects to receive 30% off your first order AND a FREE gift when you join Thrive Market today! Hot Fuzz Full Reaction Watch Along:   / thereelrejects   With Simon Pegg returning to theatres in Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning, Greg & Aaron continue their CORNETTO TRILOGY Binge with a Hot Fuzz Reaction, Recap, Commentary, Analysis, & Spoiler Review!! Join Greg Alba & Aaron Alexander as they swap London's rainy streets for the seemingly sleepy village of Sandford in Edgar Wright's 2007 action-comedy Hot Fuzz. When top London policeman Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg, Shaun of the Dead, The World's End) is transferred to the idyllic West Country, he's paired with bumbling local cop Danny Butterman (Nick Frost, Paul, Attack the Block). But Sandford's picture-postcard charm hides a dark secret—and Angel's meticulous policing uncovers a string of “accidents” that may actually be murders disguised to maintain the village's Perfect Parish Award. Rounding out the stellar cast are Jim Broadbent as the genial but suspicious Inspector Frank Butterman (Iris, Moulin Rouge!), Timothy Dalton chomping scenery as elitist Simon Skinner (James Bond in The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill), and Olivia Colman bringing comic flair as pub manager Dorothy “The Heat” Lintott (The Favourite, Broadchurch). Rafe Spall stands out as self-important councilman Michael “Lurch” Armstrong (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom), while Paddy Considine impresses as paranoid farmer Charlie Wainwright (The Bourne Ultimatum, The Outsider). Greg & A-A-Ron break down every memorable moment—from the frantic supermarket aisle shootout and the legendary “gravy train” pub brawl, to the adrenaline-pumping car chase through Sandford's narrow lanes and the explosive finale in the village church. Don't miss their take on the film's razor-sharp editing, signature Wright-Jedward humor, and the way Hot Fuzz brilliantly subverts buddy-cop tropes while delivering some of the most highly searched-for action-comedy sequences of the 2000s! Follow Aaron On Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/therealaaronalexander/?hl=en Intense Suspense by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... Support The Channel By Getting Some REEL REJECTS Apparel! https://www.rejectnationshop.com/ Follow Us On Socials:  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reelrejects/  Tik-Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@reelrejects?lang=en Twitter: https://x.com/reelrejects Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheReelRejects/ Music Used In Ad:  Hat the Jazz by Twin Musicom is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Happy Alley by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... POWERED BY @GFUEL Visit https://gfuel.ly/3wD5Ygo and use code REJECTNATION for 20% off select tubs!! Head Editor: https://www.instagram.com/praperhq/?hl=en Co-Editor: Greg Alba Co-Editor: John Humphrey Music In Video: Airport Lounge - Disco Ultralounge by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Ask Us A QUESTION On CAMEO: https://www.cameo.com/thereelrejects Follow TheReelRejects On FACEBOOK, TWITTER, & INSTAGRAM:  FB:  https://www.facebook.com/TheReelRejects/ INSTAGRAM:  https://www.instagram.com/reelrejects/ TWITTER:  https://twitter.com/thereelrejects Follow GREG ON INSTAGRAM & TWITTER: INSTAGRAM:  https://www.instagram.com/thegregalba/ TWITTER:  https://twitter.com/thegregalba Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Friends; this was a gushy one from the weatherbeaten civic on a post-Owen Sound/Uxbridge rip. Lots about my pal Krista and the Thornbury crew and lots about my pals in the Uxbridge region (Sandford specifically). If you're not up for some feels, maybe redirect your ear vehicles to an alternate sideroad because this sucker puts the pedal down on the love expressway. Have the best day and thanks for clocking in (PS - another carcast is coming soon) and being you.Catch me in a town near you in 2025 alongside Melissa Payne and many other rad artists by visiting my website to see where I'm playing. If people can hate for no reason, I can love for no reason - and I love you. Thanks for stopping by Graventown. Yer always welcome here. As a full time independent artist, you can support me by buying the Always Everthing vinyl or brand new "block heater" toque here or by joining my SUPER RAD subscription service at https://ko-fi.com/gravencanada

This week we take a look at the landmark case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which in March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court ruled that African Americans are not Citizens of the United States. The case stems from a slave named Dred Scott who sued his owner claiming that the owner took him out of state and brought him to a free state where he argued he should be free.  Subscribe to our YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/@bangdangnetwork

On this week's Mentioned in Dispatches podcast, Stephen Sandford explores the early history of the 18th Battalion London Regiment (London Irish) during the First World War. He examines the battalion's formation, recruitment, training and unique cultural identity, as well as its connections to Ireland and its first action at Loos. This talk was recorded at the London Pride Conference, held in June 2024.

You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!Welcome back to Bad Dads Film Review, where this week we lock, stock, and double-tap our way into the gloriously over-the-top world of Hot Fuzz (2007), the second film in Edgar Wright's beloved Cornetto Trilogy. With an outrageous body count and a razor-sharp script, it's a love letter to action movies — by way of twee English village life.Directed by Edgar Wright and written by Wright and Simon Pegg, Hot Fuzz stars Simon Pegg as Nicholas Angel, a no-nonsense London supercop who's so good at his job that he's making everyone else look bad. As a result, he's reassigned to the sleepy village of Sandford, where crime seems suspiciously low — and the residents suspiciously Stepford.Teamed up with the bumbling but big-hearted PC Danny Butterman (Nick Frost), Angel initially struggles with Sandford's slower pace — until a series of grisly “accidents” reveals something darker lurking beneath the surface. Cue a rampage of pensioners, hidden agendas, and a spectacular finale with more gunfire than the M25 at rush hour.This is one we could all agree on: Hot Fuzz is a near-perfect comedy that rewards repeat viewings. It's cleverly constructed, endlessly quotable (“The greater good!”), and absolutely packed with details that make it a joy to dissect. Whether you're a fan of action movies, British humour, or seeing Timothy Dalton with a smug smile and a hedge trimmer, there's something here for you.Hot Fuzz takes the quiet menace of rural England and sets it ablaze with blockbuster spectacle and sharp comedy. It's both homage and original, firing on all cylinders from start to finish. If you like your action with a side of Bakewell tart and local shop for local people energy, this one's a must-watch.

We are dropping a special episode to talk about the only Midsomer Murders spin-off - HOT FUZZ! When London police officer Nicholas Angel is transfered to the quiet town of Sandford, he uncovers a series of murders that only he can solve. We are talking a very weird Midsomer story, the history of those guys who stand in city centers pretending they are statues, and if there is indeed a place in a man's head that explodes when you shoot it. Created, produced, and hosted by Eileen Becker and Eric BuscherSend us email! We love it and crave validation! Write to us at welcometomidsomer@gmail.comLinksWebsite - www.welcometomidsomer.comFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/welcometomidsomerInstagram - welcometomidsomerThreads - welcometomidsomerWe are now on YOUTUBE - https://www.youtube.com/@WelcomeToMidsomerLogo and Podcast art - Smeedrai Theme Music - The Infamous Space

This Day in Legal History: Dred Scott DecidedOn March 6, 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, a decision that deepened national tensions over slavery. The Court held that Dred Scott, an enslaved man who had lived in free territories, was not a U.S. citizen and therefore had no legal standing to sue for his freedom. In a sweeping opinion by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court went further, declaring that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in federal territories. This effectively struck down the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had restricted the spread of slavery in certain parts of the country. The ruling was celebrated in the South but outraged abolitionists and many in the North, who saw it as an alarming expansion of pro-slavery power.The Dred Scott decision is widely regarded as one of the worst in Supreme Court history, as it denied citizenship and legal protections to Black Americans. It also emboldened pro-slavery forces while further alienating the growing anti-slavery movement. The backlash contributed to the intensifying sectional divide that would lead to the Civil War just four years later. During the war, President Abraham Lincoln and Congress took steps to undermine the decision, culminating in the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments. These amendments abolished slavery and established birthright citizenship, directly overturning Dred Scott. Today, the case stands as a stark reminder of how the law has been used to uphold racial injustice—and how later legal reforms can correct such profound wrongs.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against President Donald Trump's effort to withhold payments from foreign aid organizations for work already completed. The decision upheld an order by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, requiring the government to release nearly $2 billion in funds owed to contractors and grant recipients under USAID and the State Department. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court's liberal justices to form the majority, while four conservative justices dissented. The Trump administration had paused all foreign aid on January 20, citing an “America First” agenda, which disrupted humanitarian efforts worldwide. Aid organizations sued, arguing Trump exceeded his authority by defunding programs approved by Congress. The administration contended that enforcing payments without proper review amounted to judicial overreach. Despite Ali's repeated orders, the administration largely kept the funds frozen, prompting legal battles over compliance. Plaintiffs warned that continued delays would cause “extraordinary and irreversible harm” to millions relying on aid. The Supreme Court did not provide a rationale for its order but instructed Ali to clarify compliance obligations. A hearing is scheduled for March 7 to determine the next steps.US Supreme Court won't let Trump withhold payment to foreign aid groups | ReutersDozens of U.S. hospital systems and healthcare providers have filed lawsuits against Blue Cross Blue Shield, alleging the insurer underpaid them by billions. These providers chose to opt out of a $2.8 billion class-action settlement in Alabama, which is awaiting final approval. The new lawsuits, filed in federal courts in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, argue that Blue Cross and its affiliates conspired to divide the market, reducing competition and driving down reimbursement rates in violation of antitrust laws. Plaintiffs, including Bon Secours Mercy Health and Temple University Health, believe they could recover more through individual lawsuits than the settlement. Blue Cross has denied wrongdoing and declined to comment. The final approval hearing for the Alabama settlement is scheduled for July 29. This litigation follows a separate $2.7 billion antitrust settlement in 2020 for commercial and individual subscribers, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld last year. Some large companies also opted out of that settlement to pursue their own claims.Hospitals line up to sue Blue Cross, opting out of $2.8 bln settlement | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the authority to license temporary nuclear waste storage sites, a case brought by Texas and oil industry interests. The dispute centers on a facility in western Texas, licensed by the NRC in 2021, which opponents argue poses environmental and security risks. Some conservative justices questioned whether "temporary" storage could last indefinitely, undermining efforts to establish a permanent waste site. Liberal justices focused on whether the plaintiffs had legal standing, as they did not initially challenge the NRC's decision through the agency's process. The case follows past failures to establish a permanent nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, despite significant federal investment. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled the NRC lacked authority under the Atomic Energy Act, prompting the Biden administration to appeal—a move continued under Trump. A decision is expected by June.US Supreme Court hears Texas nuclear waste storage dispute | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This is Michelle in her own words. I am the Developer Engagement Lead for Microsoft in Asia as well as a Tedx Speaker, developer community mentor, Microsoftie and international conference Speaker. I live at the heart of the coding community and help drive awareness and engagement as a developer advocate and technology evangelist. I advocate for STEM, the Games Industry and Developers You can find Michelle on the following sites: Bluesky LinkedIn GitHub YouTube Here are some links provided by Michelle: Tech Outsiders PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST Spotify Apple Podcasts YouTube Music Amazon Music RSS Feed You can check out more episodes of Coffee and Open Source on https://www.coffeeandopensource.com Coffee and Open Source is hosted by Isaac Levin

Seth on New Years' Resolutions. Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal opinion entitled "Signposts on the Wisdom Trail." Seth reads from Justice John McLean's dissent in the 1857 Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Full Video Series at Mary Wollstonecraft goes off on Rousseau, hoisting him with his own Petard, as it were.* 00:00 Opening 00:57 I Have Notes 06:26 CHAPTER 3 06:44 Introduction to Bodily Strength and Gender 07:34 Misconceptions About Genius and Health 10:21 The Superiority Debate: Men vs. Women 11:43 ROUSSEAU Footnote: Why Women Can't ________ 17:38 Education and Female Virtue 19:01 EXTENSIVE   FOOTNOTE from Mr. Day's "Sandford and Merton", Vol III 22:30  Critique of Rousseau's Views on Women 27:11 ROUSSEAU Quote re Girls & Dolls & Coquettes 30:39 ROUSSEAU Footnote on Girl Writing the Letter "O" 36:30 The Consequences of Female Subjugation 38:05 The Call for Rational Education 40:51 The Corruption of Power and Female Dignity 41:24 Revolutionizing Female Manners 44:55 The Nature of Worship and Rational Conduct 47:20 The Role of Women in Society 51:53 The Consequences of Dependence 54:36 ROUSSEAU Footnote: Men Have All The Good Qualities (sorry ladies!) 01:02:06 ROUSSEAU Footnote - "How Lovely is Her Ignorance" 01:07:13 Summing Up: The Call for Rational Virtues 01:10:53 Outro • Xiran Jay Zhao, Author of "Iron Widow" has an amazing Channel chock full of things you never knew you needed to learn—but you do.    /   • If you've never read Anne Brontë, please take a listen to CraftLit's "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" (starts with episode 516—). She's the most shocking, most modern, and arguably the best of the Brontë writers. You likely missed her b/c Charlotte didn't like this book's 'sensibilities' and did what she could to ghost it after Anne's death. Bad Charlotte! *The phrase's meaning is that a bomb-maker is blown ("hoist", the past tense of "hoise") off the ground by his own bomb ("petard"), and indicates an ironic reversal or poetic justice. []

In this episode of 'Shaping Your Pottery,' host Nic Torres interviews Jessica Sanford, a seasoned potter with 25 years of experience. Jessica shares her unique perspectives on commonly held beliefs in the pottery world, especially regarding beginners and the emphasis on production. She recounts her journey into pottery, from high school classes to becoming an inadvertent teacher, and discusses how teaching has elevated her own pottery skills. Jessica also delves into her current focus on functional pottery and graphic design influences, her approach to finding one's voice in pottery, and the importance of curiosity and continuous learning. Listeners will gain valuable insights into the common mistakes made by beginners and intermediates, and the significance of being generous in the pottery community. You can learn more about Jessica by checking out her Instagram https://www.instagram.com/claywithjess/Join The Shaping Your Pottery Newsletter By Clicking This Link shapingyourpottery.com/newsletterFor more episodes click here www.shapingyourpottery.com 00:00 Introduction and Newsletter Invitation 00:29 Challenging Common Pottery Beliefs 03:40 Jessica's Pottery Journey 04:40 The Unexpected Teaching Opportunity 07:33 Improving Pottery Skills Through Teaching 13:03 Common Mistakes in Wheel Throwing 18:11 Jessica's Pottery Style and Inspirations 25:16 Finding Your Voice in Pottery 33:39 Final Thoughts and Parting Advice 36:13 Outro and Newsletter Reminder

Michael and Ian from Lord Of Adders Black: A Blackadder Podcast join Flixwatcher to review Michael's choice Hot Fuzz. Hot Fuzz (2007) is an action comedy directed by Edgar Wright starring Simon Pegg (who co-wrote the screenplay) and Nick Frost. It also stars the who's who of British TV and film, Jim Broadbent, Paddy Considine, Timothy Dalton, Bill Nighy, Edward Woodward, Bill Bailey, Adam Buxton, Olivia Colman and Rafe Spall. Ambitious Police Sargent Nicholas Angel (Pegg) is reassigned from London to the rural town Sandford in Gloucestershire due to his overachieving and making the rest of the force look bad. He has an eventful first evening in the Sandford and arrests a local man for drunk driving who is revealed to be PC Danny Butterman (Frost), his new police partner. Despite appearances a series of tragic accidents bestow a number of the Sandford residents with Angel suspecting foul play. Recommendability scores for Hot Fuzz were very high. Despite having watched Hot Fuzz multiple times before the engagement and repeat viewing scores were also high to give a very impressive 4.51 overall. [supsystic-tables id=376]     Episode #362 Crew Links Thanks to the Episode # 362 crew of Michael and Ian from Lord Of Adders Black: A Blackadder Podcast You can find their website here https://shows.acast.com/lord-of-adders-black    Please make sure you give them some love   More about Hot Fuzz For more info on Hot Fuzz can visit Hot Fuzz IMDB page here or Hot Fuzz Rotten Tomatoes page here. Final Plug! Subscribe, Share and Review us on iTunes If you enjoyed this episode of Flixwatcher Podcast you probably know other people who will like it too! Please share it with your friends and family, review us, and join us across ALL of the Social Media links below. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sports reporter Jamie Wall spoke to Lisa Owen about the Black Ferns looking to salvage something from their up and down season tomorrow and how Harper Sandford went viral for his performance at a Thames Valley Swamp Foxes game last weekend.

The Groundsmen this week meet one of the most interesting and experienced operators in corporate finance. Sandford Loudon of Oakvale gives an exceptionally  articulate and erudite overview of the nexus between capital and sport. This is really really good. And we have a very high bar on all this stuff. Brought to you by Web 3 Sports Ventures.

How do you bring women's health innovation to life when the healthcare system is set up to resist change? In this episode, Nicole Sandford, CEO of Aspira Women's Health, shares the hurdles her company faces in pushing forward diagnostics for ovarian cancer. As a cancer survivor, she also reflects on how her personal health journey fuels her commitment to advancing care for women.Resources and Links:Learn more about Aspira Women's Health and their ‘Ovasuite' blood tests: https://aspirawh.com/Mentioned in the episode: World Ovarian Cancer Coalition: https://worldovariancancercoalition.org/Related Episodes:‘Diagnosis' from Overlooked Season 1: https://overlookedpod.com/episode/diagnosis SUBSCRIBE to the newsletter to get updates on the podcast: sign up at the banner on the website: www.overlookedpod.com. EMAIL US - get in touch with the show: hello@overlookedpod.comDISCLAIMER What you hear and read on ‘Overlooked' is for general information purposes only and represents the opinions of the host and guests. The content on the podcast and website should not be taken as medical advice. Every person's body is unique, so please consult your healthcare professional for any medical questions that may arise.

February 26 - March 3, 1972 RETURNING guests to the show comedians Irene Bremis (watch her special Sweetie) and TV's Frank Conniff join Ken this week. Ken, Irene and Frank discuss growing up in New York, the horrors of Staten Island, good pizza, racism, Mary Tyler Moore, Sherlock Holmes cigarettes, Doral Cigarettes, True Cigarettes, killing women, Rain Barrell, questionable protein stains, fabric softener, The Old Man Who Cried Wolf, movies vs tv series, where Irene and Frank met, Brian Denehy, the map of Ireland on Frank's face, Maureen O'Hara, psychic detectives, Saturday night death slots, MTM productions, strong women, Maude, how awful Bill Cosby is, dying on stage, Bob Hope, Dana Gould, Bing Crosby and Friends, women's lib, Ear Stoppies, wigs, Rowan & Martin, Gene Hackman, Jerry Stiller, Anne Meara, comic comradery, Sid & Marty Kroft, Hart to Hart, the show with the woman, James Garner, Left Behind, Kirk, Christians, losing your mind, cycle cell anemia, Greeks, Cannon, William Conrad, MeTV, It Takes a Thief, Carson, Serling, meeting Dick Cavet, Adam 12, Dick Clark, Hellzapoppin the TV series, Dom DeLuise, George Wallace, working on Sabrina, That Girl, Cannonball Run, Eddie Murphy, Red Foxx, Sandford and Son, Soap, Room 222, and watching MeTV at 2am. 

James takes Alasdair to the spooky manor house at Sandford Orcas (a village not some cetacea) and this place is simply brimming with ghosts! From Ghosts in the South West by James Turner, this is a tale of loads of ghosts and one very macabre way of not getting blamed for farts! Follow along here... https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/147382139#/?channel=RES_BUY This episode was edited by Joseph Burrows - Audio Editor. Come see us LIVE Again! https://www.angelcomedy.co.uk/event-detail/loremen-live-again-18th-aug-the-bill-murray-london-tickets-202408181730/ LoreBoys nether say die! Support the Loremen here (and get stuff): patreon.com/loremenpod ko-fi.com/loremen Check the sweet, sweet merch here... https://www.teepublic.com/stores/loremen-podcast?ref_id=24631 @loremenpod youtube.com/loremenpodcast www.instagram.com/loremenpod www.facebook.com/loremenpod Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James lures Alasdair to a bad mannered manor house in Dorset*. We're in Sandford Orcas - which is a village, not pod of Free Willies - and the place is simply brimming with ghosts! From Ghosts in the South West by James Turner, Shakey tells a tale of troublesome monks, lunar assassins and one very macabre way of not getting blamed for farts. And you'll be pleased to know that this spooky/farty manor is currently on sale for less than five million quid - so get your offers in now! Follow along here... https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/147382139#/?channel=RES_BUY * You wouldn't endorse it. This episode was edited by Joseph Burrows - Audio Editor. Come see us LIVE Again! https://www.angelcomedy.co.uk/event-detail/loremen-live-again-18th-aug-the-bill-murray-london-tickets-202408181730/ LoreBoys nether say die! Support the Loremen here (and get stuff): patreon.com/loremenpod ko-fi.com/loremen Check the sweet, sweet merch here... https://www.teepublic.com/stores/loremen-podcast?ref_id=24631 @loremenpod youtube.com/loremenpodcast www.instagram.com/loremenpod www.facebook.com/loremenpod

Ben Criddle talks BYU sports every weekday from 3 to 7 pm.Today's Co-Hosts: Ben Criddle (@criddlebenjamin)Subscribe to the Cougar Sports with Ben Criddle podcast:Apple Podcastshttps://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/cougar-sports-with-ben-criddle/id99676

This week the James' review Hot Fuzz. James H is able to compare is background knowledge of the force to see how accurate this film is.  As a former London constable, Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) finds if difficult to adapt to his new assignment in the sleepy British village of Sandford. Not only does he miss the excitement of the big city, but he also has a well-meaning oaf (Nick Frost) for a partner. However, when a series of grisly accidents rocks Sandford, Nick smells something rotten in the idyllic village… and things will never be the same again!  Click subcribe, then play and enjoy the high speed chase of this week's episode.  Talking Codswallop can be found on ALL social media: @CodswallopPod and we are on YOUTUBE too!!! :)  

This week on The Learning Curve co-hosts U-Arkansas Prof. Albert Cheng and DFER’s Alisha Searcy interview POLITICO’s Peter Canellos, biographer of Justice John Marshall Harlan. Mr. Canellos delves into Harlan’s upbringing in a prominent slaveholding family, his Civil War service in the Union Army, and his rapid rise in Kentucky politics as a Republican. He highlights John Harlan's mixed-race half-brother Robert Harlan and key legal precedents like the notorious Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which influenced Harlan’s […]

March 6, 1857. In the landmark case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the US Supreme Court rules that African Americans are not entitled to citizenship. This episode originally aired in 2023.Support the show! Join Into History for ad-free listening and more.History Daily is a co-production of Airship and Noiser.Go to HistoryDaily.com for more history, daily.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A wondrous, buried treasure from the 20-year On Being archive, with renowned yoga teacher Matthew Sanford. Be prepared, as you listen to what follows, to take in subtleties and gracefulness you've never before pondered — or tried to feel in yourself — in the interplay between your mind and your body.Matthew has an immensely energetic physical presence. He has been paralyzed from the chest down since a car accident in 1978. But he likes to say that his experience is only more extreme, not so different, from that of everyone else. He's written, "We are all leaving our bodies — this is the inevitable arc of living. Death cannot be avoided; neither can the inward silence that comes with the aging process." Matthew's intricate knowledge of that "inward silence," which he was forced to befriend after the noisy connections which most of us take for granted were severed — it's revelatory. So is his insistence that it's not possible to live more deeply in your body — in all its grace and all its flaws — without becoming more compassionate towards all of life. And: if you do yoga, you will never think about what it is affecting inside you in the same way again.Krista sat with Matthew Sanford in 2006, just after he'd published his beautiful book Waking: A Memoir of Trauma and Transcendence.Matthew Sanford is the founder and president of Mind Body Solutions. He teaches yoga for all kinds of bodies, including adaptive yoga classes weekly, and holds regular virtual gatherings with people around the world. A video library of his teaching methods for yoga teachers is freely available. His book is Waking: A Memoir of Trauma and Transcendence.Find the transcript for this show at onbeing.org.______Sign up for The Pause — a Saturday morning companion to the podcast season.

Dred Scott v. Sandford is one of the most infamous cases in Supreme Court history: in 1857, an enslaved person named Dred Scott filed a suit for his freedom and lost. In his decision, Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney wrote that Black men “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” One Civil War and more than a century later, the Taneys and the Scotts reunite at a Hilton in Missouri to figure out what reconciliation looks like in the 21st century. Voices in the episode include: • Lynne Jackson — great-great-granddaughter of Dred and Harriet Scott, and president and founder of the Dred Scott Heritage Foundation • Dred Scott Madison — great-great-grandson of Dred Scott • Barbara McGregory — great-great-granddaughter of Dred Scott • Charlie Taney — great-great-grandnephew of Roger Brooke Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who wrote the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision • Richard Josey — Manager of Programs at the Minnesota Historical Society Learn more: • 1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford • The Dred Scott Heritage Foundation   Special thanks to Kate Taney Billingsley, whose play, "A Man of His Time," inspired the episode; and to Soren Shade for production help. Additional music for this episode by Gyan Riley. Shadow dockets, term limits, amicus briefs — what puzzles you about the Supreme Court? What stories are you curious about? We want to answer your questions in our next season. Click here to leave us a voice memo. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. Support for More Perfect is provided in part by The Smart Family Fund. Follow us on Instagram, Threads and Facebook @moreperfectpodcast, and Twitter @moreperfect.