Podcast appearances and mentions of sandra day o'connor

Mr. Fox shares his issue with his gym experience. He also reviews Busta Rhymes' latest offering. We realize something about McCauley Caulkin as he gets his star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame. We also revere Sandra Day O Connor and have one hope in her passing. And the connection between her and the case of Britney Watts who is facing murder for giving birth to a dead fetus. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/jason-clark-fox/support

Today in history: London attacked by suicide bombers. Lt. Col. Oliver North began his public testimony at the Iran-Contra hearing. President Ronald Reagan announced he was nominating Arizona Judge Sandra Day O'Connor to become the first female justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Elvis Presley made his radio debut. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sarah Suggs describes a fun program that will help kids learn about civics during the summer.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The last in our 'Remember the Ladies' webinar series for Spring 2021, broadcast live on 1 May 21. Learn more here.

The last in our 'Remember the Ladies' webinar series for Spring 2021, broadcast live on 1 May 21. Learn more here.

Free Speech Hate Speech Counter Speech The first crossover episode between May it Displease the Court, which looks at corruption in the courts from judges through dark money anti-democratic far-Right donors, and RhetoricLee Speaking, banishing banality one speech at a time. Your co-hosts, Mary and Lee, look at censorship, free speech vs. hate speech, and counter speech. Here are the highlights:   1) as much as we may want the law to recognize hate speech sometimes when truly vile opinions (in our opinions) are being circulated, the law does not recognize a hate speech exception to the first amendment that guarantees the right to free speech and    2) if there were such an exception it would be used to suppress minoritized people and their fight for civil liberties more often than it would be to silence transphobic, racist, sexist, and other kinds of exclusionary speech.   We take you through a few cases that have been instrumental in establishing the “no hate speech” exception including Snyder v. Phelps SCOTUS 2011 (Westboro Baptist Church) and Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U. S. 288    We also look at some personal examples. Mary discusses an experience at the Anne Frank House right after 9-11 and Lee discusses a current campus event where the free speech of a racist and transphobic student is being protected. They also discuss potential alternative terms to replace hate speech, including “racist erasure” and “transphobic erasure.”   Finally, Mary explains the issue of “school-sponsored speech,” in which first amendment rights come up against the purpose of educational institutions and the need for more counter-speech on the Left as the corrective for hateful-speech-that-isn’t-hate-speech by the anti-democratic far-Right funded by pro-corporate dark money donors.   Check out May it Displease the Court on Apple Podcasts, Podbean, and Spotify!   Resources The Dark Money Behind Campus Speech Wars First Amendment | US Constitution Harry CONNICK, Individually and in His Capacity as District Attorney, etc., Petitioner, v. Sheila MYERS. CITY OF SAN DIEGO ET AL. v. ROE William P. CLARK, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Petitioners v. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE et al. Fairness Doctrine: History and Constitutional Issues Local and Independent Television Protection Act would overturn a Trump-era rule that’s permitted… Watch Field of Vision - Do Not Split about the suppression of Hong Kong pro-democracy protests   Read the blog version: https://rhetoriclee.com/free-speech-hate-speech-counter-speech/   *Learn more at https://rhetoriclee.com  *Follow the show  on Facebook and on Instagram @rhetoriclee  *Subscribe to the show on iTunes/Apple Podcasts, on Google Podcasts, on Stitcher, on Youtube, on Spotify, or via RSS *Take 20 seconds to leave a short review and 5 star-rating (I’ll even take 4 stars, I’m not greedy). Reviews help future #rhetoricnerds find the show! *Have thoughts? Hit me up on social media or Gmail @rhetoriclee   Free Speech Hate Speech Counter Speech   Mary: I was flying back from France when the planes hit the Twin Towers. After US airspace was closed my plane was turned back to Amsterdam. I spent an extra week in Europe until I was able to get back home. After a few days of securing funds bc I had no money and no credit card. We decided to do a little sight seeing and went to the Ann Frank House. I had been interested in the Holocaust since I was in elementary school and had read and studied it extensively.    Set the scene  - First you went on a tour and saw the attic where Ann and her family and another family hid out from the Nazis. I saw her bedroom and the pictures she pasted on the walls. We saw the hidden bookcase entrance. It was really emotional to be stranded in another country, far away from family.    Describe the exercise –Then you descend into a part of the House that is more like a typical museum exhibit. They have the tour group sit around a table and in front of each person were two buttons, red and green and above the table were two lines of lights. At the end was a screen and on came a film that showed footage of far right Austrian politicians saying racist, hateful things and then the moderator asked whether we thought that speech should be protected, hit the green button or censored hit the red button. We did and the vast majority supported free speech. This process was repeated several more times and each time the speech got more extreme and then they started adding in comments that made it seem as if more people were supporting these hateful politicians and the votes became 50/50 free speech and censorship and by the end the vast majority had shifted from supporting free speech to supporting censorship of speech they didn’t like. I have never been a part of anything like that type of indoctrination before or since.   My reactions - I was pretty pissed because it was clearly a pro-censorship propaganda tool and it worked with the people in my group. Kind of soured my opinion of the Ann Frank House. I mean, I’m an American so the 1st Amendment; Freedom of Speech is beat into our collective identity. I was a law student at the time. I had recently taken Constitutional Law and studied this very topic. So I fully believed that the best medicine for hate speech was more speech, not censorship. Now, of course this was 2001, Fox news was 5 yrs old, it was just starting to ruin my former mother-in-law. Charles Koch and his brother were still toiling away in secret trying to remake the way American think. But I did get where the museum was coming from. Some ideas aren’t just offensive, they are dangerous and what do we do with those?   What is a Hate Crime?  the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity,” including skin color and national origin.  Hate crimes are overt acts that can include acts of violence against persons or property, violation or deprivation of civil rights, certain "true threats," or acts of intimidation, or conspiracy to commit these crimes. The Supreme Court has upheld laws that either criminalize these acts or impose a harsher punishment when it can be proven that the defendant targeted the victim because of the victim's race, ethnicity, identity, or beliefs. A hate crime is more than than offensive speech or conduct; it is specific criminal behavior that ranges from property crimes like vandalism and arson to acts of intimidation, assault, and murder.  Victims of hate crimes can include institutions, religious organizations and government entities as well as individuals.   1st Amendment  - What does it say? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.   What is Hate Speech? – Hate speech is subjective, meaning it means different things to different people. It’s a term that is thrown around as if it has a set definition. But, it doesn’t. Hate Speech is not a legally defined term.  The 1st Amendment protects the free exchange of ideas even if the expression of those ideas is considered offensive or hateful.  Matal v. Tam (2017) SCOTUS 8-0  Held that a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. It does not permit discrimination based on viewpoint and like it or not giving offense is a viewpoint. Any oft repeated idea in Sup Ct case law is "the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.   What do most people mean when they use the term hate speech? Typically it is used to describe speech designed to demean, vilify or incite hatred against a group or class of people because of their race, religion, sexual or gender identity, disability or national origin.   If this speech is copacetic with the 1st Amendment, are there any legal limits on speech?   Yes Speech becomes criminal when it is a specific threat of violence or incites imminent criminal activity targeted at a specific person or group. “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend.   For example, two years ago two students at another SUNY school posted a snapchat of the two of them just lying in bed on Halloween and the caption said “gonna lynch some ni…. tonight.” To me, given the history of lynching, given the way it was phrased, given the use of the racial slur...that should be hate speech.   Problems with excluding Hate Speech from 1st Amendment protection So, eventually a Judge is going to have to decide whether specific words are hate speech or not, not a good idea to give Judges this power. Why?    Speech that makes people angry, or upset is protected by the 1st Amendment – example the Westboro Baptist Church    Snyder v. Phelps SCOTUS 2011 (Westboro Baptist Church) for 20 yrs this group has picketed military funerals to express their belief that God hates the US bc of it’s tolerance for homosexuality. Fred Phelps is the leader the other members are all his relatives. They traveled to Maryland and picketed 1,000 feet from the Church, on public property, in accordance with instruction from local law enforcement by silently holding up signs for 30 minutes that read “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” “Fags Doom Nations” “Priests Rape Boys” “You are Going to Hell''. The soldier’s father filed suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded him millions in damages. The 4th Circuit reversed the conviction holding that the 1st  Amendment shielded them from civil liability because the statements were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric. “[S]peech on public issues occupies the ‘ “highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” ’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers , 461 U. S. 138 . Although the boundaries of what constitutes speech on matters of public concern are not well defined, this Court has said that speech is of public concern when it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,” id., at 146, or when it “is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public,” San Diego v. Roe , 543 U. S. 77 .  Court must independently examine the “ ‘content, form, and context,’   Even protected speech is “subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions.” Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U. S. 288 . Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.  Robert’s opnion – 8-1 (Alito dissenting)   Lee: and when you listen to these examples like Westboro Church of course you want to call it hate speech. I want to call it hate speech. But we always have to remember that even though the law does NOT equally apply to everyone, it pretends as if it does and so any law you want to make would apply to everyone. So you can only imagine what would happen if hate speech were enforceable and Black Lives Matter protests happened…   So while I can really understand wanting the law to step in and shut down some of these vile opinions, I also realize that if hate speech were regulated then it would be used against minoritized persons WAY more often than it would against homophobic speech, racist speech, etc.   How do we get social change if hate speech isn’t a crime? Punishing people for speech we don’t like – slippery slope – Watch Hong Kong Doc – Oscar Nom Don’t Split This is what happens when an authoritarian government – China, wants to stifle pro-democracy speech and to criminalize it. The GOP are authoritarian and anti-democratic as evidenced by their attempts to overthrow the government, propagate the big lie to undercut democracy and the 361 voter suppression bills currently being pushed by Republican state legislatures. What will they do to speech they don’t like if they get back in power?    Counter Speech is the antidote for hate speech – examples, strategies – in the US we believe that the remedy is more speech, not stifling speech. The First Amendment protects the right to advocate and agitate for a change in 1st Amendment law. And you could argue that the law should be changed to exclude hate speech, but this advocacy needs to define what constitutes hate speech, bc it is an undefined term and highly subjective. If the law is changed then it will be up to Judges to apply the new definition of hate speech to whatever circumstances brings about an alleged violation. Eugene Volokh who teached free speech law at UCLA law school, and used to clerk for Sup Ct justice Sandra Day O’Connor and also 9th Cir Judge Alex Kozinski (side note he retired after several law clerks accused him of workplace sexual misconduct including showing them porn at work on multiple occasions)  suggests advocates of this expanded area of non-protected  speech “should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected, and how judges, juries, and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two.”   Problems with continuing to say hate speech when it just legally isn’t defensible   --keeps us trapped in a binary of free speech/hate speech. so one side says hate speech the other side says free speech and it’s so obvious a slam dunk for whatever side claims free speech. --in fact, quote-unquote “american” who protect “free speech” are hoping you’ll scream about hate speech because they know it strengthens their position. I’ll give you an example on my campus a bit later when we talk about school sponsored speech   So I actually put a post on my Facebook page asking my rhetoric/communication scholar hive mind what options they suggest for navigating this binary between hate and free speech. What other options are there.   Here are some of the terms they suggested.   Symbolic racism.  Aversive racism.  Implicit racism.  the step below racism “racial animus.” symbolic racial violence overt racism racist erasure   The point isn’t to choose any one of these. The point is that when you’re willing to agree that the binary isn’t working and that counter speech is the only action we have THEN you start getting creative about inventing language to create arguments that short circuit the free speech logics of the opposition. Sure, it’s free speech. That isn’t the point. It’s also racism.    One thing I’ve heard a lot is “hateful speech” because it’s not “hate speech” but it’s close. To me, it’s too easily perverted. The other one suggested by Judith Butler and Wendy Brown is "injurious speech”--granted they’re writing about legal theory and not public protest--but even that seems to imply that we gauge the effects of speech by how HURT or INJURED the person on the receiving end is. I think that’s also a losing battle because it’s based on a subjective experience of injury that the far Right will just deny. We’ve seen this again and again with cancel-culture. “Who could get so upset over some drawings in a Dr. Seuss book?”    So I don’t use those two but I do use the earlier list and try to make the claim that I don’t care if your speech is free or not, it’s still racist, homophobic, etc. And, if necessary, I use a modifier like “symbolic racism.” Not to minimize the effects of the act but to think about what, argumentatively, I can sustain.   Mary what do you think?   Mary: concerns about many of the terms from a legal perspective but racist erasure is compelling and the most accurate description of what’s happening.   Now we are facing new challenges with the proliferation and popularity of propaganda right wing media Fox News, Oann, Newsmax, right wing radio, podcasts facebook, the internet.   Fairness Doctrine – what was it, who got rid of it. A quick google brings up some historical discussions and some negative opinion pieces about how unfair and awful the Fairness Doctrine was by the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute – Koch It was adopted in 1949 - The Fairness Doctrine required that stations provide balanced coverage of all controversial issues of public importance. The Fairness Doctrine never required “equal time” in the sense of strict equality for each side of an issue on a minute-for-minute basis. In talk programs and news coverage, a station just had to make sure that both points of view were presented in such a way that the listener would get exposure to them. How that was done was left to theon’s discretion, and the FCC intervened in only the most egregious cases. By contrast, “equal time” or “equal opportunities” stems from a different source in the Communications Act – the Section 315 provisions on the treatment by broadcast stations (and local cable systems) of candidates for public office. Essentially, equal time requires that, if a broadcast station gives one candidate free time, all other candidates can get the same amount of free time    The Reagan-era FCC eliminated this rule, which was never reinstituted in subsequent decades under either party. a subsequent Trump-era 2017 FCC decision loosened ownership restrictions on stations. In combination, these two decisions not only allowed given stations to present only one view, but for many stations nationwide — now more easily owned by the same conglomerate, such as the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group — to present the same view. Rush Limbaugh started his talk radio in 1988, Fox began in 1996   Now what?   School Sponsored Speech - The test to establish first amendment protection in the context of school-sponsored speech is laid out in Vanderhurst v. Colorado Mountain College District (2000).  “Whether an action restricting a plaintiff’s school-sponsored speech is reasonably related to the school’s legitimate pedagogical (educational) interests is the test for determining whether” his speech is protected by the First Amendment.    Lee:  Recent issue on campus, an education major--someone who is going to teach children--is posting horrible stuff on social media validating slavery and denying trans identity. Very much racist and transphobic erasure. When the student was suspended from student teaching for violating New York State law as an education major (can’t promote a bias free classroom) he lied on social media saying he was suspended from the school and then the far-Right anti-democratic dark money donor funded legal complex swooped in and miraculously, a few days later, he’s reinstated into his student teaching. Shortly thereafter, he painted over Black Lives Matter symbols on campus with USA and red and blue paint.    TFP Student Action TFP Student Action, a project of “The Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property,” is the front for this operation.   Describes itself as a group that was created to counter “liberal, socialist and communist trends of the times and proudly affirm the positive values of tradition, family and private property.” The petition, which has accumulated nearly 20,000 signatures, describes itself as a peaceful protest and argues that the student’s original suspension “sound[ed] like something right out of a communist gulag, not USA” and further elaborated that “What happened … is not merely an attack on truth, or on free speech, it is an attack against reality itself. It’s all part of the dark money, Koch and Mercer-funded attack on progressive values using “free speech” as their shield.   Speech First Inc. claims to be and is regularly called a grassroots civil rights watchdog is actually a highly professional astro-turfing campaign, with a board of former Bush administration lawyers and longtime affiliates of the Koch family.  Born in 2018, the group seems to have been enacted for the purpose of inserting itself or to put it more accurately to instigate campus culture wars:  Here’s how grassroots this group is – it President Nicole Neily said no students were involved in founding the group. The $5 lifetime membership dues—a requirement for the group to take up a student’s case in court—is a “negligible part” of its funding, which mainly comes from undisclosed backers AKA Dark Money AKA Kochs and their ilk. Speech First’s board of directors includes a former head of a Koch-backed trust and two conservative attorneys from Koch-funded programs.    “being branded as neutral, but having the people who know, know that you’re actually conservative, puts us in a unique position.” The board’s center of gravity is George Mason University, school recently revealed to have given the Kochs some sway over academic appointments in departments they funded – so much for academic freedom Speech First plans to “flood” the courts with similar lawsuits, starting with at least three more at other colleges this year.   Speech First Inc. v. Schlissel (6th Circuit) 2019 In this case, Speech First, Inc., an organization working to protect university students’ civil rights, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on behalf of three unnamed University of Michigan (UM) students. These three students claimed that their free speech rights were chilled by UM’s disciplinary rules and procedures which prohibited “harassment,” “bullying,” and “bias-related conduct.” Speech First also claimed that the “Bias Response Team” at UM investigated and punished students for engaging in “bias” conduct. “Harassing or bullying another person—physically, verbally, or through 83 some other means” is listed (Speech First v. Schlissel 2018). The Statement, including the violations section, governs all actions on UM property, at UM events, and occurring in the city of Ann Arbor, MI. The BRT was solely an educational resource and a support mechanism for students; it had no disciplinary authority. The term “bias incident” was written to be broad, because the BRT wanted to support any students who needed the resource, not to punish the alleged perpetrators   Speech First Inc v. Killeen (7th Circuit) 2020 - Speech First sued 29 administrators at the University on behalf of four anonymous students. These students claim that they wish to express what they describe as "political, social, and policy views that are unpopular on campus." Speech First's complaint lists examples of such viewpoints in general terms: opposition to abortion, support for President Trump, belief in traditional marriage, support for strong immigration policies, support for the "deradicalization of Islam," support for First Amendment protection of "hate speech," opposition to gun control, and support for LGBT rights. Speech First alleges that three University policies—the responsive action of the Bias Assessment and Response Team and the Bias Incident Protocol to reports of "bias-motivated incidents" on campus, the imposition of No Contact Directives, and the prior approval rule—chill their student members' speech, force these students to engage in self-censorship, and deter them from speaking openly about issues of public concern. Speech First challenges the actions of the University's Bias Assessment and Response Team ("BART"). BART "collects and responds to reports of bias-motivated incidents that occur within the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign community." In turn, BART defines "bias-motivated incidents" as "actions or expressions that are motivated, at least in part, by prejudice against or hostility toward a person (or group) because of the person's (or group's) actual or perceived age, disability/ability status, ethnicity, gender, gender identity/expression, national origin, race, religion/spirituality, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, etc." In addition, BART "[p]rovides opportunities for educational conversation and dialogue" and "[s]upports those impacted by bias."   determine whether to reach out to the involved students, if they are identified, to invite them to participate in a voluntary conversation. BART also devises a response plan, which could include "[e]ducational conversations," "[m]ediation, facilitated dialogue," "[e]ducational referrals," "[r]esolution agreements," or "[r]eferrals to other offices and/or programs."   Speech First Inc. v. Fenves (5th Circuit) 2020   Conclusion - What the left needs to appreciate is excluding hate speech from the 1st Amendment means it can be suppressed and that is a dangerous proposition especially when we are facing a huge increase in Trump appointed right wing Judges. It is the same tactic Republicans are using by passing bills to suppress the right to vote. Instead of trying to win over voters, to adopt policies that the majority of people support they are just working to suppress the power of those who disagree with them. That is lazy and authoritarian. The left wants to be the opposite of that approach. We need to do the hard work of making the arguments against offensive hateful speech and to engage in the debate as much and as passionately as the right. We don't have the Koch money to create and fund faux grassroots movements.    Lee: and the more popular argument AND if there’s one thing that not being bound by old traditions and outdated categories gets you, it’s the ability to think critically and creatively about new identity positions. If anyone can strategize counter-speech, it’s us.   Mary: We also have the numbers. And by using our voices collectively and consistently we can defend inclusivity without trying to exclude offensive speech. 

Some of the crew is moving to Washington D.C. (and other places, as we’ll soon see), so Leslie is getting the gang together for one last ride. What started out as a presentation with song and dance turns into a final problem-solving adventure.Meanwhile, we’re jumping into the future! Will Craig and Typhoon end up together after all? What’s Donna up to six years from now? Will Andy ever learn about Sandra Day O’Connor? How many restaurants will Tom open up? Will Garry have a successful run as mayor? Can Jean Ralphio and Mona Lisa successfully pull off a heist without being suspicious? The answer to some of these questions is “yes”; for others, it’s “no”. Still others have longer answers. And I’ve been Perd Hapley.Plus, the massive secret (but not so secret) Lyndon B. Johnson was hiding, cutting the line at amusement parks when you’re in a wheelchair, the famous John Lennon and Yoko Ono picture from Rolling Stone, how inconvenient it is for maintenance to be closed on a Friday, and getting banned from restaurants.EPISODES7, E12: One Last Ride (Pt. 1)DRINKS OF THE EPISODEJoey and Haleigh: Dirty Martinis made from Treaty Oak Distilling Old Yaupin Gin, Barsmith Dirty Martini Olive Brine Mix, T.W. Hollister Oso de Oro Sweet Vermouth, and Mezzetta Martini OlivesSean: Toothpaste and Listerine (we don’t understand it, either)TOP 5 OF THE EPISODEInternational Travel AdventuresCATEGORIESChain Restaurants

Ugly Solar Panel Store. Jack has a chat with coronavirus, who’s back. Remote Learning II, the Sequel. Cough-in-Your-Mouth class. Mystery Needle. Ivy League Prep. Simulated sports. Social Justice Book Club. Brian is an adjunct sex-ed professor at a Catholic school. Brian’s written the definitive book about the Supreme Court. Sandra Day O’Connor had a justice bucket. Jack auditions: Walking Dead Season 16, The Evil Explorer, #MeToobin the Movie.

Arizona Theatre Company’s Sean Daniels (Artistic Director) and Chanel Bragg (Associate Artistic Director) will be hanging out with ATC’s Managing Director, Geri Wright to discuss current plans for returning to live performances. Special surprise guest Lauren Gunderson also pops in to talk about ATC’s planned debut of her new musical, Justice, A new musical about Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg #ATC #WeAreArizonaTheatreCompany #hangandfocuslive #hangandfocus #weareatc

There's never been another like her. And when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September, the outpouring of support and loss of a national treasure, was palpable. Like most women, I felt like I had lost a role model. A #shero. An absolutely fierce lioness who lived a life of courage. And I wanted to honor her by sharing how she lived a life of #thinkingcourageously.So I called in members of my squad ( and beloved Inkhorn Book Club), Dr. Nichola Gutgold and Jessica Armstrong. The authors of the children's book, "Growing Up Supremely". In their book, the authors share the inspiring, and hardworking lives of the four women justices— Sandra Day O’Connor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, & Sonia Sotomayor.As we do each week, we look at the role of success, pivots and courage. And how these three words weaved into the life of #RBG. Nikki and Jessica share some of their favorite stories about the Justice. We talk about work/life balance, marriage, motherhood, unusual friendships, kindness and values.It's an up-close and personal look into a woman who made us all think differently.Jessica Armstrong serves as the Associate General Counsel at St. Luke's Health Network. Dr. Nichola Gutgold is a Professor of Communications at Penn State University-Lehigh Valley Campus.

What do the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court, a comedic newspaper columnist and an Academy Award-winning actress have in common? On the face of it, not much. But these three trailblazing women, all from humble backgrounds, reflect here on the grit and determination that led them to create their own destinies, defying any rational probability of success. And each one talks about how her personal journey was shaped by generational experiences and constraints. 

It's National Cooking day, National Lobster Day, and National Daughters Day. It is also the day The United States Congress passed the Bill of Rights. On the podcast, we talk about the Little Rock Nine, Sandra Day O'Connor, and a couple that got an interesting shipment in the mail.

This week, Trey Gowdy pays tribute after the recent passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and discusses how death is treated by the news media. Trey urges listeners to read about Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor and the ways in which they fought for justice and against inequality. Trey weighs in on whether President Trump should nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill the current vacancy and elaborates on when he believes the United States Supreme Court appointments became entrenched in partisanship.  Follow Trey on Twitter: @TGowdySC

Sandra Day O’Connor will always be known as the first woman to sit on the US Supreme Court, appointed by President Reagan in 1981. But one of her greatest legacies may be the creation of iCivics, educational video games that have taught more than 5 million school children to be active, thoughtful participants in our democracy. Host Kim Azzarelli speaks to Louise Dubé, executive director of iCivics, about Justice O’Connor’s life of purpose and service to others, and why we need iCivics more than ever at this moment. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://news.iheart.com/podcast-advertisers

Before Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court in 1981, nine highly qualified women were on the shortlist. What do the stories of these women tell us about the judiciary? Gender? Feminism? Race? In Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court (NYU Press, 2020), Renee Knake Jefferson (professor at the University of Houston Law Center) and Hannah Brenner Johnson (Vice Dean and a law professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego) demonstrate how highly (and often overly) qualified woman are shortlisted by presidents -- from Herbert Hoover to Donald Trump -- to create the appearance of diversity before a (white) man is selected to preserve the status quo. Short-listing isn’t success but symptom of a problem. Jefferson and Johnson’s research in presidential libraries, private papers, oral histories, the Nixon tapes, and biographies reveals that presidents as early as Herbert Hoover began discussing female candidates – though presidents set aside overly qualified women for decades. The first half of this nuanced book explores the first woman considered (Florence Allen), five judges who were on the short lists of JFK, LBJ, Nixon, and Ford, and female judges who were short-listed alongside Sandra Day O’Connor (including the first Black female judge, Amalya Lyle Kearse). The histories of each candidate map onto the waves of feminism, reflect on the role of marriage, motherhood, and sexuality, and allow the authors to identify the harms of short-listing. The details are revealing about both past and present and the second half of the book addresses how to apply the lessons learned from these decades of paying lip-service to diversity. How can candidates transition from shortlisting to selection? Jefferson and Johnson discuss tokenism, the burdens of being a gender spokesperson, racism, ageism, and the binds of femininity and “respectability.” The authors demonstrate how the selection of women for the Supreme Court impacts other aspects of the legal system and beyond. Although the number of men and women entering law school and entry-level legal positions are equal, the rate at which men reach leadership positions is considerably faster than women. This phenomenon can be seen in many fields where there is a pursuit of professional advancement. The authors conclude with strategies such as “collaborating to compete” to reform the American legal system. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is associate professor of political science at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. She is the author of Democracy, Intelligent Design, and Evolution: Science for Citizenship (Routledge, 2013) and, most recently, “Retreat from the Rule of Law: Locke and the Perils of Stand Your Ground” in the Journal of Politics (August 2020). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Before Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court in 1981, nine highly qualified women were on the shortlist. What do the stories of these women tell us about the judiciary? Gender? Feminism? Race? In Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court (NYU Press, 2020), Renee Knake Jefferson (professor at the University of Houston Law Center) and Hannah Brenner Johnson (Vice Dean and a law professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego) demonstrate how highly (and often overly) qualified woman are shortlisted by presidents -- from Herbert Hoover to Donald Trump -- to create the appearance of diversity before a (white) man is selected to preserve the status quo. Short-listing isn’t success but symptom of a problem. Jefferson and Johnson’s research in presidential libraries, private papers, oral histories, the Nixon tapes, and biographies reveals that presidents as early as Herbert Hoover began discussing female candidates – though presidents set aside overly qualified women for decades. The first half of this nuanced book explores the first woman considered (Florence Allen), five judges who were on the short lists of JFK, LBJ, Nixon, and Ford, and female judges who were short-listed alongside Sandra Day O’Connor (including the first Black female judge, Amalya Lyle Kearse). The histories of each candidate map onto the waves of feminism, reflect on the role of marriage, motherhood, and sexuality, and allow the authors to identify the harms of short-listing. The details are revealing about both past and present and the second half of the book addresses how to apply the lessons learned from these decades of paying lip-service to diversity. How can candidates transition from shortlisting to selection? Jefferson and Johnson discuss tokenism, the burdens of being a gender spokesperson, racism, ageism, and the binds of femininity and “respectability.” The authors demonstrate how the selection of women for the Supreme Court impacts other aspects of the legal system and beyond. Although the number of men and women entering law school and entry-level legal positions are equal, the rate at which men reach leadership positions is considerably faster than women. This phenomenon can be seen in many fields where there is a pursuit of professional advancement. The authors conclude with strategies such as “collaborating to compete” to reform the American legal system. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is associate professor of political science at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. She is the author of Democracy, Intelligent Design, and Evolution: Science for Citizenship (Routledge, 2013) and, most recently, “Retreat from the Rule of Law: Locke and the Perils of Stand Your Ground” in the Journal of Politics (August 2020). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Before Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court in 1981, nine highly qualified women were on the shortlist. What do the stories of these women tell us about the judiciary? Gender? Feminism? Race? In Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court (NYU Press, 2020), Renee Knake Jefferson (professor at the University of Houston Law Center) and Hannah Brenner Johnson (Vice Dean and a law professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego) demonstrate how highly (and often overly) qualified woman are shortlisted by presidents -- from Herbert Hoover to Donald Trump -- to create the appearance of diversity before a (white) man is selected to preserve the status quo. Short-listing isn’t success but symptom of a problem. Jefferson and Johnson’s research in presidential libraries, private papers, oral histories, the Nixon tapes, and biographies reveals that presidents as early as Herbert Hoover began discussing female candidates – though presidents set aside overly qualified women for decades. The first half of this nuanced book explores the first woman considered (Florence Allen), five judges who were on the short lists of JFK, LBJ, Nixon, and Ford, and female judges who were short-listed alongside Sandra Day O’Connor (including the first Black female judge, Amalya Lyle Kearse). The histories of each candidate map onto the waves of feminism, reflect on the role of marriage, motherhood, and sexuality, and allow the authors to identify the harms of short-listing. The details are revealing about both past and present and the second half of the book addresses how to apply the lessons learned from these decades of paying lip-service to diversity. How can candidates transition from shortlisting to selection? Jefferson and Johnson discuss tokenism, the burdens of being a gender spokesperson, racism, ageism, and the binds of femininity and “respectability.” The authors demonstrate how the selection of women for the Supreme Court impacts other aspects of the legal system and beyond. Although the number of men and women entering law school and entry-level legal positions are equal, the rate at which men reach leadership positions is considerably faster than women. This phenomenon can be seen in many fields where there is a pursuit of professional advancement. The authors conclude with strategies such as “collaborating to compete” to reform the American legal system. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is associate professor of political science at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. She is the author of Democracy, Intelligent Design, and Evolution: Science for Citizenship (Routledge, 2013) and, most recently, “Retreat from the Rule of Law: Locke and the Perils of Stand Your Ground” in the Journal of Politics (August 2020). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Before Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court in 1981, nine highly qualified women were on the shortlist. What do the stories of these women tell us about the judiciary? Gender? Feminism? Race? In Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court (NYU Press, 2020), Renee Knake Jefferson (professor at the University of Houston Law Center) and Hannah Brenner Johnson (Vice Dean and a law professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego) demonstrate how highly (and often overly) qualified woman are shortlisted by presidents -- from Herbert Hoover to Donald Trump -- to create the appearance of diversity before a (white) man is selected to preserve the status quo. Short-listing isn’t success but symptom of a problem. Jefferson and Johnson’s research in presidential libraries, private papers, oral histories, the Nixon tapes, and biographies reveals that presidents as early as Herbert Hoover began discussing female candidates – though presidents set aside overly qualified women for decades. The first half of this nuanced book explores the first woman considered (Florence Allen), five judges who were on the short lists of JFK, LBJ, Nixon, and Ford, and female judges who were short-listed alongside Sandra Day O’Connor (including the first Black female judge, Amalya Lyle Kearse). The histories of each candidate map onto the waves of feminism, reflect on the role of marriage, motherhood, and sexuality, and allow the authors to identify the harms of short-listing. The details are revealing about both past and present and the second half of the book addresses how to apply the lessons learned from these decades of paying lip-service to diversity. How can candidates transition from shortlisting to selection? Jefferson and Johnson discuss tokenism, the burdens of being a gender spokesperson, racism, ageism, and the binds of femininity and “respectability.” The authors demonstrate how the selection of women for the Supreme Court impacts other aspects of the legal system and beyond. Although the number of men and women entering law school and entry-level legal positions are equal, the rate at which men reach leadership positions is considerably faster than women. This phenomenon can be seen in many fields where there is a pursuit of professional advancement. The authors conclude with strategies such as “collaborating to compete” to reform the American legal system. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is associate professor of political science at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. She is the author of Democracy, Intelligent Design, and Evolution: Science for Citizenship (Routledge, 2013) and, most recently, “Retreat from the Rule of Law: Locke and the Perils of Stand Your Ground” in the Journal of Politics (August 2020). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Before Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court in 1981, nine highly qualified women were on the shortlist. What do the stories of these women tell us about the judiciary? Gender? Feminism? Race? In Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court (NYU Press, 2020), Renee Knake Jefferson (professor at the University of Houston Law Center) and Hannah Brenner Johnson (Vice Dean and a law professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego) demonstrate how highly (and often overly) qualified woman are shortlisted by presidents -- from Herbert Hoover to Donald Trump -- to create the appearance of diversity before a (white) man is selected to preserve the status quo. Short-listing isn’t success but symptom of a problem. Jefferson and Johnson’s research in presidential libraries, private papers, oral histories, the Nixon tapes, and biographies reveals that presidents as early as Herbert Hoover began discussing female candidates – though presidents set aside overly qualified women for decades. The first half of this nuanced book explores the first woman considered (Florence Allen), five judges who were on the short lists of JFK, LBJ, Nixon, and Ford, and female judges who were short-listed alongside Sandra Day O’Connor (including the first Black female judge, Amalya Lyle Kearse). The histories of each candidate map onto the waves of feminism, reflect on the role of marriage, motherhood, and sexuality, and allow the authors to identify the harms of short-listing. The details are revealing about both past and present and the second half of the book addresses how to apply the lessons learned from these decades of paying lip-service to diversity. How can candidates transition from shortlisting to selection? Jefferson and Johnson discuss tokenism, the burdens of being a gender spokesperson, racism, ageism, and the binds of femininity and “respectability.” The authors demonstrate how the selection of women for the Supreme Court impacts other aspects of the legal system and beyond. Although the number of men and women entering law school and entry-level legal positions are equal, the rate at which men reach leadership positions is considerably faster than women. This phenomenon can be seen in many fields where there is a pursuit of professional advancement. The authors conclude with strategies such as “collaborating to compete” to reform the American legal system. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is associate professor of political science at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. She is the author of Democracy, Intelligent Design, and Evolution: Science for Citizenship (Routledge, 2013) and, most recently, “Retreat from the Rule of Law: Locke and the Perils of Stand Your Ground” in the Journal of Politics (August 2020). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Before Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court in 1981, nine highly qualified women were on the shortlist. What do the stories of these women tell us about the judiciary? Gender? Feminism? Race? In Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court (NYU Press, 2020), Renee Knake Jefferson (professor at the University of Houston Law Center) and Hannah Brenner Johnson (Vice Dean and a law professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego) demonstrate how highly (and often overly) qualified woman are shortlisted by presidents -- from Herbert Hoover to Donald Trump -- to create the appearance of diversity before a (white) man is selected to preserve the status quo. Short-listing isn’t success but symptom of a problem. Jefferson and Johnson’s research in presidential libraries, private papers, oral histories, the Nixon tapes, and biographies reveals that presidents as early as Herbert Hoover began discussing female candidates – though presidents set aside overly qualified women for decades. The first half of this nuanced book explores the first woman considered (Florence Allen), five judges who were on the short lists of JFK, LBJ, Nixon, and Ford, and female judges who were short-listed alongside Sandra Day O’Connor (including the first Black female judge, Amalya Lyle Kearse). The histories of each candidate map onto the waves of feminism, reflect on the role of marriage, motherhood, and sexuality, and allow the authors to identify the harms of short-listing. The details are revealing about both past and present and the second half of the book addresses how to apply the lessons learned from these decades of paying lip-service to diversity. How can candidates transition from shortlisting to selection? Jefferson and Johnson discuss tokenism, the burdens of being a gender spokesperson, racism, ageism, and the binds of femininity and “respectability.” The authors demonstrate how the selection of women for the Supreme Court impacts other aspects of the legal system and beyond. Although the number of men and women entering law school and entry-level legal positions are equal, the rate at which men reach leadership positions is considerably faster than women. This phenomenon can be seen in many fields where there is a pursuit of professional advancement. The authors conclude with strategies such as “collaborating to compete” to reform the American legal system. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is associate professor of political science at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. She is the author of Democracy, Intelligent Design, and Evolution: Science for Citizenship (Routledge, 2013) and, most recently, “Retreat from the Rule of Law: Locke and the Perils of Stand Your Ground” in the Journal of Politics (August 2020). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's episode, Kimmy speaks with Amber Coleman-Mortley about how to talk to your kids about race. Amber is the Director of Social Engagement at iCivics -the nonprofit founded by Sandra Day O'Connor to promote civic engagement among children and educators using games and digital resources. She is the mom of three daughters and has a blog MomOfAllCapes, which covers parenting strategies in edtech, civic education, parent-teacher partnerships, and social-emotional development. She is AWESOME and shares with Kimmy the importance of understanding the United States complicated history, how to raise an anti-racist kid, and visual suggestions/ tools to help parents have this important conversation. Amber Coleman-Mortley Blog https://www.momofallcapes.comTwitter @MomOfAllCapeshttps://www.icivics.orgAmber's Podcast with her daughters -Let's K12 Betterhttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lets-k12-better/id1509974517Recommended reading, viewing, listeningThe 1619 Project - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html?referringSource=articleSharehttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/podcasts/1619-podcast.html?referringSource=articleShareEyes On The Prize - https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/eyesontheprize/Watchmen -https://www.hbo.com/watchmenWrite to Kimmy at -motherofallshows.com motherofallshows@gmail.com or through social media @MOASpod, Facebook page Mother of All Shows. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

It has been a terrible month at the Supreme Court—the Court let us down yet again, and conservatives lost three important cases. Senator Ted Cruz and Michael Knowles break down the latest decisions dealing with transgender employment law, abortion, DACA, and also a small victory for school choice. Plus, is Chief Justice John Roberts is the next Sandra Day O’Connor?

As early as the 1930s, presidents were considering putting the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court. So who were these other candidates on the shortlist, and why did it take until 1981 for Sandra Day O'Connor to become the first female justice? In this episode of the Modern Law Library, the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles talks with Renee Knake Jefferson and Hannah Brenner Johnson about their decade-long research project into the careers and personal lives of nine other women who could have been elevated to the Supreme Court. In Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court, Jefferson and Johnson also look at the factors that helped those nine succeed as women in the law, the institutional powers that stood in the way of their nominations, and the forces that eventually broke down the court's gender barrier. Special thanks to our sponsor, Headnote.

As early as the 1930s, presidents were considering putting the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court. So who were these other candidates on the shortlist, and why did it take until 1981 for Sandra Day O'Connor to become the first female justice? In this episode of the Modern Law Library, the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles talks with Renee Knake Jefferson and Hannah Brenner Johnson about their decade-long research project into the careers and personal lives of nine other women who could have been elevated to the Supreme Court. In Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court, Jefferson and Johnson also look at the factors that helped those nine succeed as women in the law, the institutional powers that stood in the way of their nominations, and the forces that eventually broke down the court's gender barrier. Special thanks to our sponsor, Headnote.

As early as the 1930s, presidents were considering putting the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court. So who were these other candidates on the shortlist, and why did it take until 1981 for Sandra Day O'Connor to become the first female justice? In this episode of the Modern Law Library, the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles talks with Renee Knake Jefferson and Hannah Brenner Johnson about their decade-long research project into the careers and personal lives of nine other women who could have been elevated to the Supreme Court. In Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court, Jefferson and Johnson also look at the factors that helped those nine succeed as women in the law, the institutional powers that stood in the way of their nominations, and the forces that eventually broke down the court's gender barrier. Special thanks to our sponsor, Headnote.

In this episode, Professor Renee Knake speaks by phone with Podcast Editors, Adri Langemeier and Robert Cunningham, to discuss her forthcoming book, Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court, which is available May 12th on Amazon.Shortlisted tells the incredible stories of nine women appearing on Presidential shortlists prior to Sandra Day O’Connor’s nomination. We discuss the research that went into writing the book, as well as some of the findings. Finally, Professor Knake talks with us about how we can overcome the challenges still faced by women in the legal field today.Professor Knake is a law professor and an award-winning author whose work has been featured in BuzzFeed, CNN, National Public Radio, Slate, the Wall Street Journal, and other media. She holds the Doherty Chair in Legal Ethics at the University of Houston Law Center where she teaches ethics, constitutional law, and a writing seminar on gender, power, law, and leadership.Special thanks to podcast sponsor, Vinson & Elkins.For more on the Houston Law Review, please visit houstonlawreview.orgTwitter | @HoustonLRevInstagram | @HoustonLRevFacebook | @HoustonLRevLinkedIn | The Houston Law Review Support the show Support the show (https://www.paypal.com/webapps/shoppingcart?flowlogging_id=1e36b5f2829cd&mfid=1570127481732_1e36b5f2829cd#/checkout/openButton)

Amanda and Jenn discuss platonic relationship reads, great chapter books, political memoirs, and more in this week's episode of Get Booked. This episode is sponsored by Book Riot Insiders, Flatiron Books, publishers of Miss Austen by Gill Hornby, and Wednesday Books. Subscribe to the podcast via RSS, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Stitcher. Feedback An Equal Music, by Vikrim Seth and The Fionavar Tapestry series by Guy Gavriel Kay (The Summer Tree #1) (rec'd by Alicia) Sourdough by Robin Sloan (rec'd by Roxane) Questions 1. Hello, I was wondering if you have any book suggestions that are based around or feature a strong platonic relationship that will make me cry. It could be friends, teacher-student, wise man-little boy or anything else! I enjoy mostly literary fiction and historical fiction, but I'm open to all the genres. I also wanted to mention that I'm a big fan of all your podcasts and I appreciate what you do in love of books! -Passant 2. Hey ladies! I'm looking for recommendations for simple chapter books for my 6yo sisters to read to themselves. All the children's books lists seem to be either picture books or the kind of middle grade that's closer to YA - where do you look if you want something in between?! My other siblings and I all read a lot as kids (we didn't have YouTube as a distraction!), but these two (while very intelligent and perceptive) haven't particularly shown much interest in books and their reading level is quite far below where ours was at that age/where my mother thinks it should be. They'll listen to anything if we read it aloud to them: we've enjoyed things like Jill Murphy's The Worst Witch, Megan McDonald's Judy Moody, Beverly Cleary's Ramona series and Patricia C. Wrede's Dealing with Dragons when (the last one with heavy on-the-fly editing in some places!), and we've already been down the Roald Dahl route too. They're fine rereading things that have been previously read to them, but so far pretty much all they've managed to read for themselves from the get-go are the Rainbow Fairies and Airy Fairy series, so something in that vein/maybe slightly more advanced would be great! Thank you so much for all you do - my TBR has never recovered since I discovered this podcast, and I'm hoping that one day my sisters will be able to say the same :) -Hana 3. I am moving from being a 4th grade teacher to a 5th grade teacher next year, which means I will be teaching US history for the first time. I need some good books to read over the summer to refresh my knowledge and give me a better understanding of US history outside of the list-of-white-men-violating-human-rights-and-calling-it-progress history I was taught in school. The only US history I’ve learned about since leaving school is Hamilton or Hamilton-adjacent. I’ve already read Chernow’s biography of Hamilton, and I’ve got a copy of The Half Has Never Been Told, but some good, engaging nonfiction about US history not from the view of old white men would be appreciated. Bonus points if there’s a good audiobook. -What Did I Miss 4. Hi friends! I've been going through some mental health challenges this year that have affected my self-motivation, particularly when it comes to reading. I am trying to push past some of these barriers, but with any difficult journey, I want to start small. So I need some recommendations that will be a guaranteed win for me as I begin to reignite my passion for reading on the reg. Here are some books I've read over the past couple of years that I couldn't put down: Red, White, and Royal Blue by Casey McQuiston Little Fires Everywhere & Everything I Never Told You by Celeste Ng Radio Silence by Alice Oseman A Very Large Expanse of Sea by Tahereh Mafi To All the Boys I Loved Before trilogy by Jenny Han The Poet X by Elizabeth Acevedo Vicious by V.E. Schwab The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas I clearly love romance and YA with a touch of mystery, hijinks and lots of feelings. So books with any or all of those vibes are great! I also like memoirs by cool people (Jonathan Van Ness, Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark, Lindy West, Amy Poehler, Mindy Kahling, etc.) Female, non-binary, trans authors are a plus! Thank you both! -Emily 5. Hello, My name is Chris. I am usually a big fantasy buff, I just want to get lost in a new universe, new magic, new characters. Recently I have read the seven sisters series which is not my usual jam but I am in love! The characters, the writing, the world discovery... It has made me a new historical fiction fan. I am looking for a big fat series to get lost in. A new world to discover, hopefully magical. I don't mind going through big novels. I just want to get lost in a new world, get attached to new characters, with huge plot twists, unexpected deaths maybe... I want to get lost in that world (Harry Potter-ish world building). If it's not fantasy I do not mind, as long as the plot is addictive and fast paced. -Chris 6. Hello Amanda and Jenn, I love fantasy. I love renaissance period looking fairies and witches and elves and idiot human main characters who go into the forest and find a fully set table with every food imaginable and just go "yeah, nothing strange or magical about this, I will simply eat this sparkling bread and go back home to my normal human life" and then are surprised when the fairy queen kidnaps them and is like "you ate our enchanted food and belong to us now"??? While I love all of the above, what I don't love is how prevalent racism, antisemitism, misogyny, and homophobia are in these genres, particularly when they're written by men or white women. When I voiced this in a Facebook group, a dudebro responded saying "So you expect writers to cater to your liberal snowflake fantasy? Let's be realistic, racism and sexism exists EVERYWHERE." but like, he's talking about elves and magic? So anyways, what I'd love to find is a fantasy book that has magic and fairies but is also my liberal snowflake fantasy where no woman gets kidnapped and abused, there are no racist or antisemitic caricatures, and everyone lives happily ever after. Bonus points if written by a woman and has nonwhite or female main characters. Sorry for the super long email and thank you in advance! I always love your recs! -Dee :) 7. Hi, Amanda and Jenn! I love your show. I am usually a fiction reader but lately I have read The Education of An Idealist by Samantha Power and Becoming by Michelle Obama, both of which I really enjoyed. However, they are both about women in the Obama administration, and I am interested in autobiographies or memoirs about women who are maybe on the other side of the political spectrum. But also nobody completely far-right, if that makes sense. I want to get more than just one side of an argument but also from a woman's perspective. Thanks! -Maria Books Discussed Lab Girl by Hope Jahren New Waves by Kevin Nguyen Thea Stilton series by Thea and Geronimo Stilton Great Chapter Books post Phoebe and Her Unicorn by Dana Simpson, beloved of Liberty These Truths by Jill Lepore The Making of Asian America by Erika Lee I Wish You All the Best by Mason Deaver Ramona Blue by Julie Murphy The Tufa series by Alex Bledsoe (The Hum and the Shiver #1) The Acacia series by David Anthony Durham (The War with the Mein #1) Dealing with Dragons series by Patricia Wrede (rec’d by Aly) An Accident of Stars by Foz Meadows No Higher Honor by Condoleezza Rice Lazy B by Sandra Day O’Connor (rec’d by Jeff)

In this episode of the podcast, the Hon Margaret McMurdo AC pays tribute to the life and work of Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to be appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Throughout her long and distinguished legal career, Justice O’Connor bore witness to changing attitudes and opportunities for women in the law. She became one of the most influential members of the Supreme Court, and her moderate and more narrowly expressed approach regularly proved to be decisive of the outcome. Listen as Justice McMurdo, the first woman to be appointed as presiding judge of an Australian appellate court, explores O’Connor’s influence on generations of women lawyers and judicial officers in the US and Australia. Support the show (https://legalheritage.sclqld.org.au/membership-information)

“We don’t accomplish anything in the world alone… and whatever happens is the result of the whole tapestry of one’s life and all the weavings of individual threads form one to another that creates something.” – Sandra Day ‘O Connor  Our relationships are the most influential thing in our health, success, and overall happiness. In fact, having bonds and connections with other humans is critical to thriving. And while social media has made it easier than ever to connect with others, we need to think of it as a complement to our connections instead of a replacement for real human interaction. On today’s show, you’re going to learn about the role that connections and community can have on your life. Dhru Purohit is here to share how deep and meaningful friendships can help you thrive. You’ll learn how strong relationships can support your well-being, and how connecting with others can help you reach your goals.  You’ll also hear practical applications to create intentional relationships, and how to prioritize connection in your life. Dhru is fiercely passionate about this subject and its implications, and I know you’re going to find value in his insights. Enjoy!  In this episode you’ll discover: How having a strong and supportive community can help you reach your health goals. The role that human connection plays in our lives, and how it has evolved over time. How to use social media for connection (without letting it replace real interaction!) Why caring what others think is hardwired into our DNA.  How selecting your group of friends is the ultimate form of biohacking.  Why it’s so important to consciously choose your circle of friends. The difference between logistical friends and intentional friends.  Why you should consider taking an inventory of your friends.  The truth about why it’s harder to make friends as an adult.  How making friends is similar to dating.   Two tips for making connections with others.  Where to go to find like-minded individuals. Why deep networking and connection are the key to career satisfaction. How putting others’ dreams and goals first can elevate your life.  What an opt-out event is, and how to integrate it into your schedule.  Why it’s especially important for men to put energy into relationships.  Items mentioned in this episode include: Organifi.com/Model ⇐ Use the coupon code model for 20% off! Foursigmatic.com/model ⇐ Get 15% off your daily health elixirs and coffee! Turn Your Struggle Into Strength with Shaun T. – Episode 252 Upgrade Your Environment with Lori Harder – Episode 368 The Surprising Science of Stress with Dr. Rangan Chatterjee – Episode 376 Build Strength & Character with Jay Ferruggia – Episode 375 Top Five Regrets of the Dying by Bronnie Ware  Connect with Dhru Purohit Podcast / Instagram  * Download Transcript Be sure you are subscribed to this podcast to automatically receive your episodes:  Apple Podcasts Stitcher Spotify Soundcloud Join TMHS Facebook community - Model Nation 

Award-winning author Evan Thomas and his wife Oscie Thomas, an attorney and frequent collaborator on his books, discuss his new book First: Sandra Day O’Connor, drawn from exclusive interviews and first-time access to the archives of America’s first female Supreme Court justice. Barbara Perry, professor and director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia's Miller Center, moderates.

Sandra Day O’Connor was born in 1930 in El Paso and grew up on a cattle ranch in Arizona. At a time when women were expected to be homemakers, she applied and was accepted into Stanford University. When she graduated near the top of her law school class in 1952, no firm would interview her--but Sandra Day O’Connor’s story is that of a woman who repeatedly shattered glass ceilings, and did so with a blend of grace, wisdom, humor, understatement, and cowgirl toughness. After becoming the first ever female majority leader of a state senate, and then judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, she arrived at the United States Supreme Court in 1981, appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Her quarter-century tenure on the Court ultimately shaped American law. Diagnosed with cancer at fifty-eight, and caring for a husband with Alzheimer’s, O’Connor endured every difficulty with grit and poise.

This week's guest has one of the most eclectic resume's in business, including the following: He has been a child television star A Supreme Court clerk for Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsbert Co-Founder of an internet startup A graduate of Harvard at age 19 The author of a TED talk that received over 1M views in it's first 3 days Perhaps most striking, Isaac Lidsky is only 40, and he is blind. Born with Retinitis Pigmentosa, a rare degenerative disease of the retina, from age 12 to 25 he slowly lost his sight.  Isaac is the author of the book "Eyes Wide Open," which chronicles his personal experience with losing his sight, but more importantly, in it, he shares with us the lessons he learned along the way that we can all use to live a better life. In this interview, Isaac shares openly about his personal story. He tells us what it means to truly live 'eyes wide open.' He also speaks candidly about the opportunity that we all have to live the life we want to live. And, his message aligns so closely with a recent episode of the podcast centered around radical responsibility.  We are so grateful to have had this chance to partner with Isaac Lidsky on this episode!

Quizmasters Lee and Marc are joined by Quizmaster Adam, a previous guest and host of Adam’s World Trivia at Fashioning Beer in Changchun, China, as heard in episode 53 of the KnowNo. Adam talks about how he’s sourcing new questions during his vacation back to the states. Lee shares a recent tough bonus point round that stumped his players. Round One TELEVISION - What is the real character name of ‘McDreamy’ from Grey’s Anatomy? 1980’s MTV - What stop-motion animated music video from the 80's holds the record for most MTV music video award nominations as well as the record for most number of plays for a single on the channel of all time? (inspired by this post on reddit) INVENTIONS - The first commercially available zippers were used on what popular article of clothing? U.S. PRESIDENTS - What U.S. President was the first whose inauguration was televised? MONSTER TRUCKS - Grave Digger may be one of the most popular Monster Trucks, having debuted in 1981, but what is known as the original "Monster Truck" as marketed by Truck-a-Rama promoter Bob George in 1979? WORLD HISTORY - What natural disaster began in 1918 and killed 50-100 million people, about 5% of the total population, making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history? ETYMOLOGY - What Japanese word translates to "divine wind" and was coined when Kublai Kahn was thwarted by a two-day while trying to invade the island nation, destroying most of the invading Mongol force 70,000 large? Round Two SOUTH PARK - In the 1995 video that served as a pilot for the series South Park, who does Jesus face off against? ALUMNI - Former Supreme Court Justices William Renquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy all graduated from what Palo Alto University? ANIMAL GROUP NAMES - What is a group of bears called? PEOPLE MAGAZINE’S SEXIEST MAN ALIVE - Name the only two men given the title 'Sexiest Man Alive' by People Magazine who have died in the years since. GEOGRAPHY - The only two island countries in the Middle East are Cyprus and what country? TIME’S MAN OF THE YEAR - In 1982, what inanimate object was 1982’s Man of the Year? Final Questions MAGAZINES - What magazine offered readers exclusive closeups of Rosie O’Donnell’s infected finger? ENGLISH LANGUAGE - According to the corpus of contemporary American English, what word is the most frequently used word in the English Language? TELEVISION - Name three of the girls on the show The Facts of Life. ACRONYMS - What does the television acronym HDMI stand for? TURTLES - Named after a fisherman who helped discover the species in Key West, what kind of turtle is the only that nests during the day? Weekly Wrap Up July 15th, 2019 @ Palace - The World Is A Moist Place And I Am No Longer Afraid To Die, 101 pts.. July 16th, 2019 @ Gather - Ender’s Game, 101 pts. July 17th, 2019 @ Bury Me Brewing Co. - Pootie Tang, 56 pts. Upcoming LIVE Know Nonsense Trivia Challenges August 5th, 2019 – Cape Coral FL – 7:00 PM @ Palace Pub & Wine Bar. Categories include THE OFFICE, RIVERDALE, POKEMON, COFFEE, U.S. HISTORY, MUSIC THEORY, THE SUN & more. Final question category will be Classic Movies selected by Cortez Gang. August 6th, 2019 – Cape Coral FL – 7:00 PM @ Gather. Categories include HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER, CULINARY ARTS, GUITAR PARTS, WORDS & PHRASES, ANIME, TENNIS & More. Final wager question category will be 90’s music selected by Big Fact Hunt. August 7th, 2019 – Fort Myers, FL – 7:00 PM @ Bury Me Brewing Co. The final Know Nonsense wager question will be ‘Rockstar Games’ selected by ‘Three Horseman.’ August 8th, 2019 – Cape Coral, FL – 7:30 PM @ No. 3 Craft Brews & Beer Bar. Thank you Thanks to our supporters on Patreon. Thank you, Quizdaddies – Tommy (The Electric Mud) and Tim (Pat's Garden Service) Thank you, Team Captains – Kristen & Fletcher Thank you, Proverbial Lightkeepers – Dylan, Justin, Cooper, Elyse, Aaron, Sarah, Brina, Karly, Kristopher, Josh, Gil, Shaun, Lucas and Max Thank you, Rumplesnailtskins – Jeff, Eric, Steven, Efren, Mike J., Mike C. If you'd like to support the podcast and gain access to bonus content, please visit http://theknowno.com and click "Support." Special Guest: Adam.

Every weekday for a full year, listeners can explore the trials, tragedies, and triumphs of groundbreaking women throughout history who have dramatically shaped the world around us. In each 5 minute episode, we’ll dive into the story behind one woman listeners may or may not know -- but definitely should. These diverse women from across space and time are grouped into easily accessible and engaging monthly themes like Pioneers, Creators, Villainesses, STEMinists, Warriors & Social Justice Warriors, and many more. Encyclopedia Womannica is hosted by WMN co-founder and award-winning journalist Jenny Kaplan. The bite-sized episodes pack painstakingly researched content into fun, entertaining, and addictive daily adventures. Encyclopedia Womannica was created by Liz Kaplan and Jenny Kaplan, executive produced by Jenny Kaplan, and produced by Liz Smith and Andi Kristins. Special thanks to Shira Atkins, Alli Lindenberg and Edie Allard. Follow Wonder Media Network: Website Instagram Twitter

My longtime friend Linda Hirshman, who wrote a book about how Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor changed the world with their historic appointments to the Supreme Court (and how RBG started shaking things up decades before that), talks to us about both amazing women, with a particular focus on RBG. (Linda's book is called: "Sisters in Law: How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World"). In the second half of our interview, to be posted tomorrow, Linda talks about her new book, coming out tomorrow, "Reckoning: The Epic Battle Against Sexual Abuse and Harassment." That book is about the MeToo movement, again from a social historian's perspective, starting with Chappaquiddick and taking us to today. This is a 10-minute clip of the 36 minute interview. To hear the entire show, and help keep us ad free, become a patron over at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/posts/27531984 If you're in NYC or DC, Linda will speaking about her book at the Strand in NYC (Broadway and 12th) on Tuesday, June 11 at 730pm, and at Politics & Prose in DC (up Connecticut Avenue) this coming Friday, June 14, at 7pm. https://www.lindahirshman.com/

Welcome: Roger Juan Maldonado, President, New York City Bar Association Introduction: Barry H. Garfinkel, Of Counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Speaker: Hon. Jon O. Newman, United States Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit The Leslie H. Arps Memorial Lectures are made possible by the generosity of the firm of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP & Affiliates. Sponsoring Association Committee: Committee on The Leslie H. Arps Lectures, Barry H. Garfinkel and Scott Musoff, Co-Chairs Former Arps Lecture Speakers Include: Hon. Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (1989), Hon. Lawrence E. Walsh (1991), Hon. James L. Oakes (1992), Herbert Brownell (1993), Dean John D. Feerick (1996), Hon. Robert W. Sweet (1997), Hon. Patricia M. Wald (1999), Leon Silverman (2003), Hon. Elena Kagan (2005), Hon. Sandra Day O'Connor (2010), Hon. Pierre N. Leval (2012), George J. Mitchell (2013), Hon. Jose A. Cabranes (2015), Hon. Robert A. Katzmann (2016) and Jeffrey Toobin (2018)

Author, historian, and journalist Evan Thomas was afforded unprecedented access to the personal and professional life of a Supreme Court Justice to write his authoritative biography of the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. In this episode of the State Bar of Texas Podcast, host Rocky Dhir talks to the New York Times bestselling author about what he learned writing First: Sandra Day O’Connor. Evan shares anecdotes and lessons learned from his deep dive into her work and private life. Evan Willing Thomas III is a journalist, historian, and author. He is the author of ten books, including two New York Times bestsellers. He has taught at Harvard and Princeton and, for 20 years, was a regular panelist on Inside Edition, a weekly public affairs TV show. Special thanks to our sponsor, LawPay.

This episode features award-winning broadcaster Richard Harris, who discusses his own caregiving experience and his chance connection with the late Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Check out Harris' article on Sandra Day O'Connor and her Alzheimer's at https://www.nextavenue.org/sandra-day-oconnor-alzheimers/

Topics: Black Hair/Jheri Curls, Luther Vandross, Ragtime (Film) - Howard Rollins Jr., Nell Carter (Tv). (Bonus Artist: Luck Pacheco)   1981 Notes 1.      Snapshots 2.      Ronald Reagan is President 3.      Jan - Ronald Reagan is sworn in as the 40th President of the United States. Minutes later, Iran releases the 52 Americans held for 444 days, ending the Iran hostage crisis. 4.      Mar - U.S. President Ronald Reagan is shot in the chest outside a Washington, D.C. hotel by John Hinckley, Jr. Two police officers and Press Secretary James Brady are also wounded. 5.      Jun - The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that five homosexual men in Los Angeles, California, have a rare form of pneumonia seen only in patients with weakened immune systems (the first recognized cases of AIDS). 6.      Jul - President Ronald Reagan nominates the first woman, Sandra Day O'Connor, to the Supreme Court of the United States. 7.      Aug - MTV (Music Television) is launched on cable television in the United States. 8.      Aug - The IBM Personal Computer, commonly known as the IBM PC, is introduced. 9.      Nov - Luke and Laura marry on the U.S. soap opera General Hospital; it is the highest-rated hour in daytime television history. 10.     Dec - The first American test-tube baby, Elizabeth Jordan Carr, is born in Norfolk, Virginia. 11.     Open Comments: 12.     Popular Music Scene 13.     Top 3 Singles 14.     1 - "Bette Davis Eyes", Kim Carnes 15.     2 - "Endless Love", Diana Ross & Lionel Richie 16.     3 - "Lady", Kenny Rogers 17.     Record of the Year: "Bette Davis Eyes" performed by Kim Carnes 18.     Album of the Year: John Lennon & Yoko Ono, Double Fantasy 19.     Song of the Year: "Bette Davis Eyes" performed by Kim Carnes 20.     Best New Artist: Sheena Easton 21.     Open Comments: 22.     Popular Movies 23.     Top 3 Grossing Movies 24.     1 - Raiders of the Lost Ark 25.     2 - On Golden Pond 26.     3 - Superman II 27.     Open Comments: 28.     Popular TV 29.     Top 3 Rated Shows 30.     1 - Dallas 31.     2 - 60 Minutes 32.     3 - The Jeffersons 33.     Open Comments: 34.     Black Snapshots 35.     Feb - Funky 4 + 1 perform "That's the Joint" on NBC's Saturday Night Live. This makes them the first hip hop act to perform on national television.  36.     Mar - Toni Morrison gave her next novel, Tar Baby (1981), a contemporary setting. In it, a looks-obsessed fashion model, Jadine, falls in love with Son, a penniless drifter who feels at ease with being black. 37.     Jun - Wayne Williams, a 23-year-old African American, is arrested and charged with the murders of two other African Americans. He is later accused of 28 others, in the Atlanta child murders. 38.     Aug - Bryant Gumbel: The candidates auditioned for Brokaw's job throughout the summer of 1981 when he was on vacation. Gumbel became a candidate for the job just by chance when he served as a last-minute substitute for Today co-anchor Jane Pauley in August 1981.  39.     Oct - Gimme a Break! is an American sitcom that aired on NBC for six seasons from October 29, 1981 until May 12, 1987. The series starred Nell Carter as the housekeeper for a widowed police chief (Dolph Sweet) and his three daughters. 40.     Sep - Isabel Sanford - For her role on The Jeffersons as "Weezy", she won a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series in 1981, making her the first African American actress to win in that category. 41.     Best R&B Vocal Performance, Female: Aretha Franklin for "Hold On I'm Comin'" 42.     Best R&B Vocal Performance, Male: James Ingram for "One Hundred Ways" 43.     Best R&B Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal: Quincy Jones for The Dude 44.     Best R&B Instrumental Performance: David Sanborn for "All I Need Is You" 45.     Best Rhythm & Blues Song: "Just the Two of Us" performed by Grover Washington, Jr. & Bill Withers 46.     Open Comments: 47.     Economic Snapshot 48.     New House: 78k 49.     Avg. income: 21k 50.     New car: 8k 51.     Avg rent: 315 52.     Postage Stamp: 18c 53.     Movie ticket: 2.25 54.     Open Comments: 55.     Social Scene: The Jheri Curl 56.     Brief History of Black Hair 57.     For centuries black communities around the world have created hairstyles that are uniquely their own. These hairstyles span all the way back to the ancient world and continue to weave their way through the social, political and cultural conversations surrounding black identity today. 58.     Ancient Origins: Headdresses and wigs symbolized one’s rank and were essential to royal and wealthy Egyptians, male and female alike.  59.     Twisted Locks: Dreadlocks have often been perceived as a hairstyle associated with 20th century Jamaican and Rastafarian culture, but according to Dr. Bert Ashe’s book, Twisted: My Dreadlock Chronicles, one of the earliest known recordings of the style has been found in the Hindu Vedic scriptures and worn about 2,500 years ago. 60.     Intricate Braids: Braids were used to signify marital status, age, religion, wealth, and rank within several West African communities. 61.     Bantu/Nubian Knots: Bantu universally translates to “people” among many African languages and is used to categorize over 400 ethnic groups in Africa.  62.     Cornrows: Africans wore these tight braids laid along the scalp as a representation of agriculture, order and a civilized way of life. These types of braids have served many purposes, from an everyday convenience to a more elaborate adornment meant for special occasions. In the age of colonialism, slaves wore cornrows not only as an homage to where they had come from, but also a practical way to wear one’s hair during long labored hours. 63.     Madam CJ Walker and The Quest for Straight Hair: Even after Emancipation, there was a growing notion that European textured hair was “good” and African textured hair was “bad,” foreign and unprofessional. Wigs and chemical treatments became the means to achieve smoother, straighter hair. Cornrows were still popular, but this time only as the base for sew-ins and extensions, not something thought of as for public display. In the early 1900s, Annie Malone and Madam C.J. Walker started to develop products that targeted this want for straighter hair.  64.     Dreadlocks: In the 1920s, Jamaica born Marcus Garvey began a black nationalist movement in America to spread his belief that all black people should return to their rightful homeland of Africa. Although many associate dreadlocks like Bob Marley’s with what became known as the Rastafari movement, the Ethiopian emperor, who the movement was named for, was better known for his facial hair than the hair on his head. Early Rastas were reluctant to cut their hair due to the Nazarite vow in the Bible. Tensions started to build regarding debates on whether to comb these locs. In the 1950s, a faction within the Rastafari movement, the Youth Black Faith, rebelled against any visual signs of conformity, and split into the “House of Dreadlocks” and “House of Combsomes.” 65.     Afro: With the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and ‘70s, came the rise of the natural hair movement that encouraged black communities to accept their hair and turn away from damaging products. The notion of conforming to European standards did not fit with their message of black power. 66.     Jheri Curl (Thanks Michael Jackson):  The Jheri curl provided a glossy curly style that became uniquely iconic in its time. The name comes from its inventor, Jheri Redding, a white man from an Illinois farm who turned into one of the 20th century’s leading hair chemists. In the 1970s, Jheri Redding Products created a two-step chemical process that first softened the hair, then sprang it up into curls. However, Comer Cottrell is the man responsible for taking this product to the masses. In 1970, Cottrell and two partners started mixing hair care products by hand for their new L.A. company, Pro-Line Corporation. By 1980 they were able to create a product that replicated the look of the Jheri curl for much cheaper. The Curly Kit cut out the need to book an expensive salon appointment and in 1981, Forbes magazine called it “the biggest single product ever to hit the black cosmetic market.” In their first year of business, the $8 kits took in over $10 million in sales. 67.     Audio Clips 68.     Shape-Ups and Fade: (Thanks Michael Jackson) The 1980s ushered in the birth of Hip Hop, which had a huge cultural influence on style. Black barber shops around the U.S. had perfected the fade but the ‘80s allowed them to blossom with more forms of creativity and expressionism. Afros were shaped up with the sides cut short for a hi-top fade, and cornrows were braided in with flairs of individuality. Icons like Grace Jones sported inspired looks on their album covers, and by the 1990s the fade was being beamed into television sets across the U.S., via Will Smith in The Fresh Prince of Bel Air. [Source: https://www.history.com/news/black-hairstyles-visual-history-in-photos] 69.     Open Comments: 70.     Question: What is your "back in the day" hair horror story? 71.     Music Scene 72.     Black Songs from the Top 40  73.     #2 - "Endless Love", Diana Ross & Lionel Richie 74.     #6 - "Celebration", Kool & the Gang 75.     #7 - "Kiss on My List", Hall & Oates 76.     #13 - "Being with You", Smokey Robinson 77.     #18 - "Just the Two of Us", Grover Washington, Jr. & Bill Withers 78.     #19 - "Slow Hand", The Pointer Sisters 79.     #22 - "Sukiyaki", A Taste of Honey 80.     #39 - "Lady (You Bring Me Up)", Commodores 81.     #45 - "How 'Bout Us", Champaign 82.     Vote: 83.     Top R&B Albums 84.     Jan - Hotter Than July, Stevie Wonder 85.     Feb - The Gap Band III, The Gap Band 86.     Mar - The Two Of Us, Yarbrough & Peoples 87.     Apr - Being With You, Smokey Robinson 88.     May - A Woman Needs Love, Ray Parker Jr. & Raydio 89.     Jun - Street Songs, Rick James 90.     Oct - Breakin' Away, Jarreau 91.     Nov - The Many Facets Of Roger, Roger 92.     Nov - Never Too Much, Luther Vandross 93.     Nov - Something Special, Kool & The Gang 94.     Nov - Raise, Earth, Wind & Fire 95.     Vote: 96.     Key Artists: Luther Vandross, "The Velvet Voice" 97.     Luther Ronzoni Vandross Jr. (@ 30 yrs. old), was born and raised in NYC. He was a singer, songwriter and record producer. - "For many years, Luther Vandross was the vintage Cadillac among the banged-up jalopies in the used car lot of male pop singers.  98.     With a sound that echoed the smooth soul stylings of the 1960s, Vandross was a fixture on the rhythm and blues charts from his solo recording debut in 1981 until his tragic stroke in 2003. Over the course of his career he released a string of platinum albums and established himself as one of the leading romantic singers of his generation. Much of his appeal came from his emotional approach to music, which he modeled after great female vocalists such as his friends Aretha Franklin and Dionne Warwick." 99.     He Came from Musical Family:  His father, an upholsterer, died when Luther was eight years old, and his mother, a nurse, supported the family (4 children) while living in lower Manhattan housing project. His first piano lessons came at the age of three and his sister was a member of a doo-wop group. By 13, Vandross was obsessed with the girl groups of the Motown label, as well as the gospel-based soul sounds being produced by the likes of Aretha Franklin and Cissy Houston. He liked to hang out in the school hallways and sing doo-wop. In 1972 (@21 yrs. old) a song written by Vandross, "Everybody Rejoice," was chosen for the Broadway musical The Wiz. Although he received substantial royalties for the composition, the money was not enough to support him completely, and Vandross continued to work at a variety of "day jobs". 100.    Entered the Music Industry through the Back Door: In 1974 (@23 yrs. old), Vandross received his first real professional break. A childhood friend landed a job backing British singer David Bowie, and he invited Vandross to accompany him to a recording session during the making of Bowie's album Young Americans. During the session, Bowie overheard Vandross mentioning some background vocal arrangement suggestions to Alomar. Bowie loved the ideas, and he immediately hired Vandross to sing and arrange backup vocals for the album. He also recorded a Vandross-penned song, "Fascination." When the album was finished, Vandross joined the Bowie tour as a backup singer. Through Bowie, Vandross made many important connections in the music industry, laying the groundwork for his own budding career. Bowie introduced Vandross was Bette Midler. She hired Vandross to sing backup vocals on her next two albums. Vandross soon became much sought after. Among the artists whose recordings his voice appeared on during the next few years were Chaka Khan, Carly Simon, Ringo Starr, the Average White Band, Barbra Streisand, and Donna Summer. He also became one of Madison Avenue's favorite voices for commercial jingles. During the late 1970s, Vandross's anonymous voice was used to sell everything from fried chicken to long-distance telephone service, not to mention as a recruiting tool for the U.S. Army.  Artistically, however, those jobs did not satisfy him, and he continued to try to break out as a solo act. He formed or joined several groups, with such names as Luther, Bionic Boogie, and Change, but none proved commercially viable. He also sang the lead vocal on Chic's song "Dance, Dance, Dance." 101.    Hit the Big Time: Part of the problem in landing a solo recording contract was Vandross's insistence on total creative control of the recording process. Another problem was the prevalence of disco, a musical form antithetical to Vandross's lyrical approach. Finally, in 1980, Vandross used his own money to rent a studio and began recording. He took the resulting handful of songs to Epic Records, and he was immediately given a contract. Epic released Vandross's first solo album, Never Too Much, in 1981. The album sold more than one million copies cracked the top ten on black pop charts, and effectively launched Vandross's career as a solo superstar. 102.    Audio Clip / Open comments: 103.    Achievements: Grammy Awards, 1979, 1990, 1991 (2), 1996, 2003 (4); NAACP Image Awards, 1990, 2003. 104.    Health and death: As Vandross's career expanded, so did his waistline. At times his weight soared to well over 300 pounds. Angered by the constant mention of his size in the press, where he was tagged with such nicknames as the "heavyweight of soul," Vandross shed 120 pounds, only to seesaw back and forth between weight extremes for the next several years. In several interviews, Vandross attributed the yo-yoing to his love life. When things were going well, he lost weight; when he was heartsick, he overcompensated with food. Sadly, in April of 2003 Vandross suffered a debilitating stroke that left him temporarily in a coma; the stroke was likely caused by a combination of his recent weight gain and his ongoing struggle with diabetes. He never fully recovered.  105.    Vandross died on July 1, 2005, at the JFK Medical Center in Edison, New Jersey, at the age of 54 of a heart attack. [Source:https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/literature-and-arts/music-popular-and-jazz-biographies/luther-vandross] 106.    Movie Scene: Ragtime 107.    A 1981 drama, directed by Miloš Forman, based on the 1975 historical novel Ragtime by E. L. Doctorow.  Starring: Howad E Rollins Jr, Moses Gunn, Debbie Allen, and Samuel Jackson. 108.    Review: "Profound as Coalhouse's story might be, Ragtime is about far more. Set in early 1900s New York, at the beginning of America's so-called Gilded Age, the movie is about the radical and long-lasting changes, including the onset of the industrial revolution, and increased importance of civil rights and sexual equality issues. As in E.L. Doctorow's novel, the characters in Forman's film each represent those changes, with Coalhouse just one in a complex and compelling mix. [Source: Nikki Tranter - 28 Nov 2004 https://www.popmatters.com/ragtime-1981-dvd-2496253275.html] 109.    Roger Ebert - “Ragtime” is a loving, beautifully mounted, graceful film that creates its characters with great clarity. We understand where everyone stands, and most of the time we even know why. Forman surrounds them with some of the other characters from the Doctorow novel (including Harry Houdini, Teddy Roosevelt, and Norman Mailer as the architect Sanford White), but in the film they're just atmosphere, window dressing. Forman's decision to stick with the story of Coalhouse is vindicated, because he tells it so well. [Source: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/ragtime-1981] 110.    Audio Clips 111.    Open Comments 112.    The actor Howard E. Rollins Jnr made his film debut in Milos Forman's Ragtime (1981) as Coalhouse Walker, the cool, sophisticated ragtime pianist. who becomes head of a group of black revolutionaries. Variety praised his "staggeringly effective portrayal of conscience-wracked pride" and "intense screen magnetism that bodes instant stardom". For a time, it looked as if Rollins would become Sidney Poitier's successor. However, in spite of unanimous praise from the critics, and an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor, Rollins made only one other film appearance. This was A Soldier's Story (1984) ...Rollins gave another memorable performance as the stylish, self-assured but intense Captain Richard Davenport, one of the first black officers in the US Army, who arrives in a racially segregated training camp in wartime Louisiana to investigate the murder of a black sergeant. But this time there was no Oscar recognition or any follow-up movie roles. Years passed before Hollywood felt ready to promote a serious black actor: Denzel Washington. 113.    Question: Was he better than Denzel? 114.    Black Television: Gimme a Break! [PLEASE!] 115.    The series aired for 6 seasons and starred Nell Carter as the housekeeper for a widowed police chief (Dolph Sweet) and his three daughters. 116.    Nell Ruth Hardy, (@ 33yrs old), born and raised in Birmingham, AL was an award-winning singer, actress, Broadway and television performer. She possessed a powerful, sultry singing voice and had a very strong stage presence; she deftly handled roles in drama, comedy, and musicals with equal capability. 117.    Carter was the fifth of nine children. When she was a toddler, her father died of electrocution. At 15, she was raped at gunpoint and gave birth to the child. That same year, four of her friends died when a bomb planted by segregationists exploded in a local church. Later, Carter would say she found solace in listening to music, having a fondness for her mother's Dinah Washington and B.B. King tunes as well as her brother's Elvis Presley records. Carter developed her performance skills by singing in church groups, on the gospel circuit, on a weekly radio program, and coffeehouses. At age 19, she moved to New York City to study acting at Bill Russell's School of Drama. There, she began to appear at several nightclubs. 118.    Carter's Broadway debut came in the 1971 musical Soon. (@23 yrs. old), – unknowns Richard Gere and Peter Allen were in the cast. Carter also had a bit part in the film Jesus Christ Superstar in 1973. She moved overseas and studied drama in London before being cast in the 1978 Broadway production of Ain’t Misbehavin' (@30 yrs. old), where it ran four years. She would win a Tony Award for her performance in Ain't Misbehavin' and won an Emmy Award in 1982 for the television version of the show. In addition to her stage roles, Carter appeared in a handful of television shows in the late 1970s and early 1980s, including the soap opera Ryan's Hope in 1978 and 1979 and in the television series The Mis-adventures of Sheriff Lobo in 1980. Sensing her appeal, network executives offered her the lead role in the sitcom Gimme A Break! in 1981. 119.    Audio clip: 120.    After Gimme a Break went off the air in 1987, Carter took various parts in films, on television shows, and on stage. Even later in her career, Carter kept active with cabaret performances and concerts. 121.    Eating disorders, alcohol and drug addiction, and other health concerns plagued Carter for years. In a 1994 interview, she admitted that she first tried cocaine the night she won her Tony Award. In 1992, Carter had two brain surgeries to fix an aneurysm. In 1997, Carter learned she had diabetes. Carter was married in 1982 and divorced in 1992, then married again that same year. She was divorced again in 1993. In 1989 and 1990, she adopted two sons. Carter died on January 23, 2003, at the age of 54 due to natural causes likely caused by heart disease and complications from diabetes. [Rumored: After her passing, friends and family were surprised to discover that Carter had been living as a closeted lesbian, and that custody of her children had been left to her domestic partner, Ann Kaser.] [Main Source: https://www.notablebiographies.com/newsmakers2/2004-A-Di/Carter-Nell.html#ixzz5kPhe5ORT] 122.    Open Comments 123.    Question: Was this just a show about a modern Mammy? 124.    Vote: Favorite Pop Culture thing for the year?

Author and historian Evan Thomas delves into the interesting and often surprising life of the first female Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor.

Author Evan Thomas discusses his new Sandra Day O’Connor biography “First" which draws on exclusive interviews and first-time access to Justice O’Connor’s archives.  O'Connor was the most powerful woman to sit on the court as the swing vote for more than a quarter of a century. He speaks with Bloomberg's June Grasso.

Talmage Boston hosts a discussion and interview of Evan Thomas, author of First: Sandra Day O'Connor. Recorded at a live event in Dallas, TX.

Author Evan Thomas joins Buried Treasure to recount the life of America's first female Supreme Court justice, Sandra Day O'Connor. She's the subject of his new book, "First," which is an intimate, inspiring, and authoritative biography. Alongside co-hosts Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman, they discuss key points in her career as well as her influence. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court talks with Evan and Oscie Thomas about Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. Evan is the author of “First: Sandra Day O’Connor,” a biography released last week. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Evan Thomas talks about “First,” his new biography of O’Connor, and Mitchell S. Jackson discusses “Survival Math.”

Rehnquist proposed. O'Connor said no.

Attorney General candidate Erika Harold joins the show to discuss her candidacy. Karen Sheley from the ACLU discusses the Chicago police consent decree. Forbes journalist Robert Wood discusses the legal ramifications of winning the lottery. In the Legal Grab Bag, Tina and Rich are joined by WGN Radio’s Elif Geris and the Illinois Opportunity Project’s Kathleen Murphy to discuss breaking legal news involving Sandra Day O’Connor, Michael Avenatti, Canadian cannabis, spooky Halloween lawsuits and more.

The Trump administration proposes changes to Title IX, Meghan Markle says university education is a “right” in her first royal tour speech, and Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court, reveals that she has been diagnosed with dementia. O’Connor was appointed to the highest court in the land by Ronald Reagan in 1981 and was often the swing vote throughout her tenure on the court. All that and more in this week’s edition of “Problematic Women”. Listen in the podcast below. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On September 25, 1981, Sandra Day O’Connor was sworn in as the first female Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. 

It’s a Roe v. Wade rematch when the Supreme Court hears the case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey in 1992. As a new split forms among the Court’s conservatives, Sandra Day O’Connor, the country’s first female justice, is the deciding vote to determine the future of abortion rights in the United States.

This year, 2018, the Jewish community observes Yom HaShoah starting at sundown on April 11th. Yom HaShoah is Holocaust Remembrance Day, a day that the country of Israel observes to commemorate the extermination of approximately six million Jews and five million others who perished in the Holocaust. Concentration camps were built in several areas of Europe to accomplish what the Nazis referred to as "The Final Solution." A few of them still stand today as reminders of a very dark time in history. With the energy created by the torture and death that occurred in these camps, it is easy to believe that haunting activity would be experienced at them. No official paranormal investigations have taken place at any camp out of respect and because such investigations would seem sacrilegious, but there are many reports of weird things being reported by people who have visited. Join us as we explore the history and hauntings of the Nazi Death Camps of the Holocaust. The Moment in Oddity was suggested by listener Mari Cruz Aponte-Veliz and features Sedlec Ossuary, the Bone Church. This Month in History features Sandra Day O'Connor becoming first woman to preside over SCOTUS. Check out the website: http://historygoesbump.com Show notes and pictures can be found here: https://historygoesbump.blogspot.com/2018/04/hgb-ep-253-yom-hashoah-and-nazi-death.html Become an Executive Producer: http://patreon.com/historygoesbump Music: Vanishing from http://purple-planet.com (Moment in Oddity) In Your Arms by Kevin MacLeod http://incompetech.com (This Month in History) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ All other music licensing: PODCASTMUSIC.COM License Synchronization, Mechanical, Master Use and Performance Direct License for a Single Podcast Series under current monthly subscription.

Colleen returns to the Mayor's office to bring us "All I Want for Christmas", a reeeeeeeal 90s kids' movie. Discussion points: Sandra Day O'Connor and Nazi hunters.

"Don't wait for others to join you. Because you might wait forever." Gretchen Rubin has sold nearly 3 million books worldwide and perhaps is best known for her books The Happiness Project & The Four Tendencies. She is a thought-provoking observer of human nature and happiness, or as her sister likes to describe her "a happiness bully." She has an incredibly interesting story to tell; a graduate of Yale Law School who clerked for the nation's first female Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor; the host of the Happier Podcast with Gretchen Rubin; interviewed by Oprah; walked with the Dalai Lama; and an answer to a Jeopardy question. She is a prolific researcher and note taker who is "subject to epiphany" and writes about issues simply because she finds them interesting. Her topics range from JFK & Winston Churchill to fame & money.  Today, Gretchen joins us to share her insights into happiness and how we too can capture more of it in our lives.  SHOW NOTES:  Gretchen is the author of 8 books: The Happiness Project, The Four Tendencies, Better Than Before, Happier At Home, Forty Ways to Look at JFK, Forty Ways to Look at Winston Churchhill, Power Money Fame Sex,& Profane Waste. She grew up in Kansas City, MO and now lives in New York City with her husband and two daughters. Gretchen says about her time clerking for the Supreme Court, "all of the justices are extremely earnest and sincere in trying to hold up the ideals of the United States of America. Everyone was trying to do their best work, every day." "All someone can do in this world is to try and do the right thing." "I never think of where I want to be in the future. I think what do I want to do now!" "I think the most important thing that I've learned is that: we can build a happy life only on the foundation of our own nature, our own values, our own interest and that there is no magic one size fits all solution." Her first commandment is "Be Gretchen" "The only person we can change is ourselves, often we can change a situation because we changed ourselves." GRETCHEN RUBIN'S LIVE INSPIRED 7 1. What is the best book you’ve ever read? I never answer that question. I love books too much. (John finally gets her to offer one book: The Essays of George Orwell.)  2. Tomorrow you discover your wealthy uncle shockingly dies at the age of 103; leaving you millions. What would you do with it? Probably nothing.  3. Your house is on fire, all living things and people are out. You have the opportunity to run in and grab one item. What would it be? My cell phone. 4. You are sitting on a bench overlooking a gorgeous beach. You have the opportunity to have a long conversation with anyone living or dead. Who would it be? St. Therese of Lisieux, author of The Story of the Soul known as "the little flower." She is my spiritual master.  5. What is the best advice you’ve ever received? The best advice I ever received is from me, "Be Gretchen." I also like, "a strong voice repels as well as attracts."  6. Looking back, what advice would you give yourself at age 20? Be Gretchen.  7. It’s been said that all great people can have their lives summed up in one sentence. How do you want yours to read?  She did what she set out to do.  ***  If you enjoyed today’s episode: Subscribe (automatically get new episodes), rate & review (help spread the word!) this podcast wherever you get your podcasts. I can’t wait to see you here next Thursday! Today is your day. Live Inspired. Live Inspired with John every day on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Instagram and get his Monday Motivation email: www.JohnOLearyInspires.com/Monday-Morning

From her hardscrabble upbringing on cattle ranch (where she tamed a bobcat!) to her incredible sway on the Supreme Court, Will and Mango explore Justice O'Connor's incredible life, the glass ceilings she broke through along the way, and what made her both such a practical and a fiercely independent voice on the court. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://news.iheart.com/podcast-advertisers

The University of Colorado Boulder’s Center of the American West is proud to present the Wallace Stegner and the Humor Initiative’s Fools for a Day Awards to Senator Alan Simpson, Pete Simpson and their wives Ann and Lynne. The Center has combined the Stegner Award with the Humor Initiative to celebrate the Simpsons’ contributions to our understanding of the West, and to embrace the opportunity to laugh as we do so. “As public servants, and as people who have contributed their great gifts as story-tellers to the well-being of the West, the Simpson Family occupy a central place in the cultural identity of the West,” Patty Limerick, Faculty Director of the Center of the American West said. “With the Simpsons in our midst, the West has cornered the market for honest, forthright, and very funny commentary on the whole nation’s successes and defeats, the charms and the vexations, the ideals realized and the ideals still in need of our attention and action.” Alan Simpson, Former U.S. Senator from Wyoming, spent a career in public service. From Wyoming Assistant Attorney General to City Attorney, he was very active in all civic, community, and state activities. As an author, teacher, and visiting lecturer, he continues to serve on numerous corporate and non-profit boards and travels the country giving speeches. His wife Ann Schroll Simpson’s career varied from teaching, grass roots campaigning, real estate, constituent activities, and social responsibilities. She served as co-chairman of the Congressional Wives Mental Health Committee, as a board member and president of the University of Wyoming Art Museum Board, and as an active fund-raiser for the Art Mobile, which is her brain child. Pete Simpson, a distinguished and award winning academic, and a notable historian and author, was twice elected to the Wyoming House of Representatives. In line with the Simpson family’s long tradition of public service, he ran for the office of Wyoming Governor in 1986. At the University of Wyoming, Pete Simpson taught a remarkable course in which students explored current issues and, drawing on their instructor’s network of allies and notable figures, proposed bills to the State Legislature. Long before the 2016 armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Oregon, Pete Simpson’s book, A Community of Cattlemen: A Social History of the Cattle Industry in Southeastern Oregon provided a clearheaded and tranquil understanding of that contentious locale. His wife Lynne Simpson’s career spans public administration, public affairs, community theater, the arts, and social services. Each year, the Center of the American West presents the Wallace Stegner Award to an individual or group of individuals who have made a sustained contribution to the cultural identity of the West through literature, art, history, lore, or an understanding of the West. The Center also presents the Fools for a Day award annually to celebrate those individuals whose skills and temperaments support the central conviction of the Center of the American West: A dose of good humor is essential to constructive public discussion, and not coincidentally, to public health. Fools for a Day and Wallace Stegner Award recipients include: Sandra Day O’Connor, Former Supreme Court Justice (Stegner); Bob Mankoff, Former Cartoon editor of The New Yorker (Fool); Ted Turner Entrepreneur/Philanthropist (Stegner); JohnMcPhee The New Yorker Contributor and Pulitzer Prize Winner (Stegner). Thank you to Al and Carol Ann Olson, for their support of the Stegner Award, and to Bill and Jane Reynolds for their support of the Humor Initiative.

TBA

Isaac Lidsky comes onto the Cashflow Diary podcast to give you some much needed inspiration and to show you that you can achieve your vision for your life. As a successful child actor in a major sitcom, Isaac Lidsky was bound from Hollywood to Harvard, where he graduated by the age of 19 – all while losing his eyesight to a rare blinding disease, retinitis pigmentosa. Yet his future was bright. Today a blind CEO, author and acclaimed speaker, Isaac shares a remarkable story of courage and achievement amid tough challenges. America first saw Isaac as “Weasel” in NBC’s "Saved by the Bell: The New Class". As a teen, while his eyesight gradually diminished, Isaac began to reframe his outlook. Dispelling any notion of disability, Isaac honed his true vision. And his achievements kept mounting: following college, he not only spearheaded a start-up, but then studied law and graduated Harvard Law School magna cum laude; clerked for Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sandra Day O’Connor, and argued and won more than a dozen appeals in federal court on behalf of the United States. As an entrepreneur and leader, Isaac’s first company sold for $230 million, and he then transformed a struggling Orlando subcontractor into the leading $150 million construction services company ODC Construction, he now leads as CEO. He also founded Hope for Vision, a nonprofit organization that funds the development of treatments and cures for blinding diseases.   Podcast Highlights Who is Isaac Lidsky? Isaac grew up in the Hollywood fairytale in a lot of ways. When Isaac was 13 he was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa and realized that he was destined to lose his eyesight. Isaac believed that he would end up alone and unremarkable, which obviously turned out to not be true. Where did the courage to continue come from? We all confront our challenges differently. In the face of crisis, our fears can step in and we often imagine the worst case scenario. Isaac lost his sight over the course of twelve years. The process of becoming blind made Isaac realize that we shape our own realities. In every moment, we get to choose who we want to be and how we live our lives. It’s an inescapable responsibility. Isaac had an epiphany in the office of his occupational therapist. He was choosing to live in the awful world that he had created for himself in his mind. He made a choice to live differently. How did you go from the doctor’s office to creating a company? What is it that you want to spend your time and your life on? What does success look like to you? You are living the answer to those questions every moment of your life, whether or not you are asking them consciously. Without your diagnosis, would your life look like the way it does? Isaac wouldn’t change a thing about his life. Going blind was one of the greatest unexpected blessings he has received. Changing your perspective We tell ourselves stories and limit ourselves. We listen to our fears and let them dictate the way we act. In the business world, entrepreneurs often set out to market the business or service that they want to sell. But it’s often more lucrative to create what your customers want to buy. Why did you write the book? EYES WIDE OPEN explores the vision and philosophy of choosing what you want to see. Isaac wrote the book with his children in mind in the hopes that they will read it in the future. Isaac does not have vision problems, he has sight problems. No matter what circumstances we are in, there are people who have done far more with much less and have lead happier lives. It’s not our circumstances that dictate our life, it’s how we view them

Sandra Day O’Connor becomes first woman appointed to U.S. Supreme Court. The daughter of Arizona ranch owners, Sandra Day was born on March 26, 1930 in El Paso, Texas and educated by a mother and grandmother who let her know they had great expectations of her. She graduated from Stanford University in economics, and by 1952 was a newlywed with a Stanford law degree; she had married fellow law student John Jay O’Connor III. Her initial job search met with considerable resistance from private firms, but Day finally landed work as a deputy county attorney in California. Her career soon expanded from law to politics as a Republican and then a judge. In 1979 she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Then on July 7, 1981, U.S. President Ronald Reagan nominated her for the Supreme Court. When Day O’Conner took the oath of office on September 26, 1981, she became the first woman judge at the top court. A moderate Republican, she often served as the swing judge on a politically divided bench. She announced her intention to retire from the top court in July 2005 once a new judge was confirmed. On January 31, 2006 Justice Samuel Alito received the confirmation and O’Connor officially retired. After her announcement to retire but before her actual retirement, O’Connor accepted the role of chancellor of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. She took over the mostly ceremonial post from Henry Kissinger, and is part of a long line of distinguished chancellors, including former President George Washington, former Chief Justice Warren Burger and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Isaac Lidsky’s TED talk was viewed more than a million times in its first 20 days. It has a mid preso reveal I’ll spoil for you here - he is blind, and when revealed, it’s a surprise, if you didn't know Isaac. He looks and presents like he’s seeing you, but make no mistake, he is not. Isaac was diagnosed with a blinding eye disease when he was 12 years old and he slowly lost his sight over the next 12 years. In spite of that, Isaac graduated from Harvard College at 19 with a degree in mathematics and computer science, he founded an Internet startup that later sold for $230 million. He returned to Harvard, graduated Harvard Law with high honors, litigated appeals on behalf of the United States as a Department of Justice lawyer and he became the only blind person to clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court when he worked for Justices, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “Going blind really was at the end of the day one of the best things that ever happened to me. WE are the creators of the realities, WE experience the circumstances. WE confront the things that are beyond our control.” Isaac is the New York Times bestselling author of Eyes Wide Open. Overcoming obstacles and recognizing opportunities in a world that can't see clearly. On the podcast, we talk about his story told in his new book “Eyes Wide Open. Overcoming obstacles and recognizing opportunities in a world that can't see clearly.” We talk about when he was first diagnosed and the resulting panic and depression he felt, the gripping fear that he had to deal with. We talk about what blindness taught him. Isaac talks about how true reality isn't something you perceive, it's something you create in your mind.  "We have a very useful and very rich and immersive experience of sight that has nothing to do with the world around us and yet and here's the fundamental contradiction. We experience what is truth. So we literally create our own truth and believe it."  There is the McGurk effect, The Ponso illusion, sight even affects how you taste food. Add to it all your cognitive biases and you create your own subjective reality. Sight starts becoming a disadvantage. Isaac helps me "see" that, I think he can help you too. Show Notes [00:07:22] Why his Ted talk reveal was such a surprise [00:09:59] Why he says going blind was one of the best things that ever happened  [00:15:50] His story, the diagnosis and learning to live with blindness   [00:16:04] His description of the disease's progression [00:17:26] Hi emotional reactions and future predictions when first diagnosed [00:29:02] The bounce, the moment he knew he could thrive  

A book titled EYES WIDE OPEN: Overcoming Obstacles and Recognizing Opportunities in a World That Can't See Clearly may sound like another "motivational" book by another guru.............It's NOT!See why Sandra DayO'Connor, Shawn Achor, author of The Happiness Advantage, and Dr. Ivan Misner, founder of BNI praises Issac Lidsky's book and his exceptional work and success.The Business Business Buliders Show with Marty Wolff and www.c-suiteradio is thrilled to present Issac Lidsky.This interview is loaded with SURPRISES. I am not even going to give you hint. TRUST me, this is an awesome business and life lesson.Join me on www.c-suite radio to listen to what others have said is AWESOME!Thank you to Peter Himmelman of www.bigmuse.com and Tony Banta of www.venturegreatly.com for supporting this edition of the Business Builders Show.If you are searching for one of the most experienced and tested executive coaching and business consulting firms in America, give me a call at 570 815 1626.Thanks for listening. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On Wednesday March 15, 2017, host Janeane Bernstein will chat with former Saved by the Bell star-turned-entrepreneur, Isaac Lidsky, who shares his journey of becoming blind…and then learning to see with “Eyes Wide Open.” In his popular new TED Talk "What reality are you creating for yourself?," former Saved by the Bell teen star-turned-entrepreneur Isaac Lidsky recalls how the sales person he waved to in the store was really a mannequin, and how he reached down to wash his hands and realized it was a urinal and not a sink. He learned of his diagnosis at thirteen: Retinitis Piegmentosa, a degenerative eye disease that would lead to his blindness by age 25. After initially believing his blindness signaled the end of his independence and achievement, Lidsky found other pathways of perception, turning his life around with his Eyes Wide Open philosophy. He graduated from Harvard Law School, worked as a law clerk under the guidance of Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and eventually became a highly successful entrepreneur and family man. In his new book EYES WIDE OPEN: Overcoming Obstacles and Recognizing Opportunities in a World That Cant’s See Clearly, Isaac Lidsky probes the many facets of perception, detailing the neuroscience of sight and drawing on his own experience to show how our perception shapes—and often limits—our reality. Isaac Lidsky will share how his journey taught him to: · face fears in moments of crisis or extreme change and shape his own reality; · focus his viewpoint when it came to so-called “weaknesses;” · tackle the perception of luck; · listen with “eyes wide open” to better understand what others are communicating. Isaac Lidsky shares how to live with freedom from self-limitations and to lead life with deeper awareness, understanding, accountability, and success. About the Author: Isaac Lidsky has an eclectic resume. He played “Weasel” on Saved by the Bell: The New Class; graduated from Harvard College at age nineteen with a degree in mathematics and computer science; graduated from Harvard Law School and served as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg; transformed a struggling $15 million concrete subcontractor into an industry-leading $150 million business; and founded Hope for Vision, a nonprofit that funds the development of treatments for blinding diseases. Lidsky was born with Retinitis Pigmentosa, a rare degenerative disease of the retina that caused him to gradually lose his sight. Lidsky lives Florida with his wife and four children. Learn more at www.Lidsky.com.

Show #159 | Guest: Games For Change chairman Asi Burak discusses his work with former supreme court justices, NASA, the United Nations, and even the White House to pioneer a new kind of video game ... one for social change. | Show Summary: The phenomenal growth of gaming has inspired plenty of hand-wringing since its inception--from the press, politicians, parents, and everyone else concerned with its effect on our brains, bodies, and hearts. But what if games could be good, not only for individuals but for the world? In Power Play, Asi Burak and Laura Parker explore how video games are now pioneering innovative social change around the world. As the former executive director and now chairman of Games for Change, Asi Burak has spent the last ten years supporting and promoting the use of video games for social good, in collaboration with leading organizations like the White House, NASA, World Bank, and The United Nations. The games for change movement has introduced millions of players to meaningful experiences around everything from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the US Constitution. Power Play looks to the future of games as a global movement. Asi Burak and Laura Parker profile the luminaries behind some of the movement's most iconic games, including former Supreme Court judge Sandra Day O’Connor and Pulitzer-Prize winning authors Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn. They also explore the promise of virtual reality to address social and political issues with unprecedented immersion, and see what the next generation of game makers have in store for the future.

Excited and grateful to be joined this Friday at 8am Pacific on The Contact Talk radio Network with one of my most pivotal and intangible mentors, Dave Pelzer! Dave has received personal commendations from four U.S Presidents. Dave was honored as one of the Ten Outstanding Americans to be honored as the Outstanding Young Person of the World. Dave is also the recipient of the National Jefferson Award which is considered the Pulitzer Prize for public service. Other recipients have included Sandra Day O'Connor and Colin Powell. Dave is the author of eight inspirational books. Dave's books have been on the Best Sellers lists for well over 13 years combined. A Child Called "It" alone has been on the New York Times Bestsellers List for well over 6 years. Dave is the first author to have four #1 International Best Sellers and to have four books simultaneously on the New York Times Best Sellers List. Dave Pelzer believes that our only limitations are ourselves. Treat Yourselves and Tune In! #LivingFearlessly LISTENERSHIP: 145 countries, 220 TV/Radio Terrestrial Satellites and the potential for millions of I-Tune Downloads. Thank you for being one of over 100K subscribers to my Living Fearlessly Podcast over on I-Tunes. Deeply appreciated! #LivingFearlessly Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security are the most powerful domestic law enforcement officers in the United States government. In this episode, hear critical highlights from the confirmation hearings of President Trump's nominees for those jobs: Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General and General John Kelly for Secretary of DHS. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD098: USA Freedom Act: Privatization of the Patriot Act Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Attorney General Nomination, Senate Committee on the Judicary, January 10, 2017 Watch on C-SPAN Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Timestamps & Transcripts Part 1 1:12:10 Senator Chuck Grassley: During the course of the presidential campaign, you made a number of statements about the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, relating to her handling of sensitive emails and regarding certain actions of the Clinton Foundation. You weren’t alone in that criticism—I was certainly critical in the same way, as were millions of Americans, on those matters—but now you’ve been nominated to serve as Attorney General. In light of those comments that you made, some have expressed concern about whether you can approach the Clinton matter impartially in both fact and appearance. How do you plan to address those concerns? Jeff Sessions Mr. Chairman, it was a highly contentious campaign. I, like a lot of people, made comments about the issues in that campaign with regard to Secretary Clinton, and some of the comments I made, I do believe that that could place my objectivity in question. I’ve given that thought. I believe the proper thing for me to do would be to recuse myself from any questions involving those kind of investigations that involve Secretary Clinton that were raised during the campaign or could be otherwise connected to it. Sen. Grassley: Okay. I think it’s—let me emphasize, then, with a followup question. To be very clear, you intend to recuse yourself from both the Clinton email investigation, any matters involving the Clinton Foundation, if there are any. Sessions: Yes 1:22:55 Senator Diane Feinstein: Appearing on the TV show 60 Minutes, the president-elect said that the issue of same-sex marriage was “already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. It’s done, and I’m fine with that.” Do you agree that the issue of same-sex marriage is settled law? Jeff Sessions: Supreme Court has ruled on that. The dissents dissented vigorously, but it was five to four, and five justices on the Supreme Court—a majority of the court—have established the definition of marriage for the entire United States of America, and I will follow that decision. 1:30:05 Senator Orrin Hatch: In the 108th Congress, you introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 77, expressing the sense of the Congress that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced throughout the United States. It passed the Senate unanimously—it pleased it, too. In fact, it is the only resolution on this subject ever passed by either the Senate or the House. Now, Senator Sessions, with your permission I want to share with you that resolution adopted last year by the Utah legislature outlining why pornography should be viewed as a public health problem, as well as some of the latest research into the harms of obscenity. Is it still your view that federal laws prohibiting adult obscenity should be vigorously enhanced? Jeff Sessions: Mr. Chairman, those laws are clear, and they are being prosecuted today and should be—continue to be effectively and vigorously prosecuted in the cases that are appropriate. Sen. Hatch: In making this a priority for the Justice Department, would you consider reestablishing a specific unit dedicated to prosecuting this category of crime? Sessions: So, that unit has been disbanded—I’m not sure I knew that, but it was a part of the Department of Justice for a long time, and I would consider that. 1:49:40 Senator Patrick Leahy: Do you agree with the president-elect, the United States can or should deny entry to all members of a particular religion? Jeff Sessions: Senator Leahy, I believe the president-elect has, subsequent to that statement, made clear that he believes the focus should be on individuals coming from countries that have history of terrorism, and he’s also indicated that his policy, and what he suggests, is strong vetting of people from those countries before they’re admitted to the United States. 1:55:35 Senator Lindsey Graham: What’s your view of Obama’s administration’s interpretation of the Wire Act law to allow online video poker, or poker gambling? Jeff Sessions: Senator Graham, I was shocked at the memorandum, I guess the enforcement memorandum, that the Department of Justice issued with regard to the Wire Act and criticized it. Apparently, there is some justification or argument that can be made to support the Department of Justice’s position, but I did oppose it when it happened, and it seemed to me to be an unusual— Graham: Would you revisit it? Sessions: I would revisit it, and I would make a decision about it based on careful study. 2:12:55 Senator Dick Durbin: Senator Graham asked this question, and I listened to your answer when he asked you what would happen to those 800,000 currently protected by President Obama’s executive order, known as DACA, who cannot be deported for two years—it’s renewable—and can work for two years, and you said, let Congress pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. You opposed the only bipartisan effort that we’ve had on the Senate floor in modern memory. And what’s going to happen to those 800,000, if you revoke that order and they are subject to deportation tomorrow, what is going to happen to them? What is the humane, legal answer to that? Jeff Sessions: Well, the first thing I would say is that my response to Senator Graham dealt with whose responsibility this is. I had a responsibility as a member of this body to express my view and vote as I believed was correct on dealing with issues of immigration. That’s not the attorney general’s role; the attorney general’s role is to enforce the law. And as you know, Senator Durbin, we’re not able financially or any other way to seek out and remove everybody that’s in the country illegally. President Trump has indicated that criminal aliens, like President Obama indicated, certainly are the top group of people, and so I would think that the best thing for us to do—and I would urge colleagues that we understand this—let’s fix this system. And then we can work together, after this lawlessness has been ended, and then we can ask the American people and enter into a dialogue about how to compassionately treat people who’ve been here a long time. Durbin: That does not answer the question about 800,000 who would be left in the lurch, whose lives would be ruined while you’re waiting on Congress for a bill that you opposed. Sessions: Well, I thought it did answer it pretty closely about what you asked, and I understand your concerns. 2:31:10 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: As a question of law, does waterboarding constitute torture? Jeff Sessions: Well, there was a dispute about that when we had the torture definition in our law. The Department of Justice memorandum concluded that it did not necessarily prohibit that, but Congress has taken an action now that makes is absolutely improper and illegal to use waterboarding or any other form of torture in the United States by our military and by all our other departments and agencies. 2:54:50 Senator Amy Klobuchar: If you could just explain your views of the Voting Rights Act moving forward and what would happen in terms of enforcement if you were attorney general. Jeff Sessions: The Voting Rights Act that passed in 1965 was one of the most important acts to deal with racial difficulties that we face, and it changed the whole course of history, particularly in the South. There was a clear finding that there were discriminatory activities in the South that a number of states were systematically denying individuals the right to vote. And you go back into the history, you can see it plainly: actions and rules and procedures were adopted in a number of states, with the specific purpose of blocking African Americans from voting, and it was just wrong, and the Voting Rights Act confronted that. And it, in effect, targeted certain states and required any, even the most minor, changes in voting procedure, like moving a precinct across— Klobuchar: So, how would you approach this going forward? For instance, the Fifth Circuit’s decision that the Texas voter ID law discriminates against minority voters, that was written by a Bush appointee, do you agree with that decision? How would you handle this moving forward? Sessions: Well, I have not studied that. There’s going to be a debate about it, courts are ruling on it now, and that is a voter ID and whether or not that is an improper restriction on voting that adversely impacts disproportionately minority citizens. So that’s a matter that’s got to be decided. On the surface of it, it doesn’t appear to me to be that. I have publicly said I think voter ID laws properly drafted are okay, but as attorney general it’ll be my duty to study the facts in more depth to analyze the law, but fundamentally, that can be decided by Congress and the courts. 3:10:33 Senator Ben Sasse: This administration has made the case regularly that they need to exercise prosecutorial discretion because of limited resources—and, obviously, there aren’t infinite resources in the world—so what are some proper instances, in your view, when an administration might not enforce a law? Jeff Sessions:Well, critics of the immigration enforcement, the DAPA and the DACA laws, said that the prosecutorial-discretion argument went too far. It basically just eliminated the laws from the books. Secondly, with regard to that, the president’s executive—well, the order came from homeland security, not from the Department of Justice, but homeland security’s order not only said we’re not going to force the law, with regard to certain large classifications of people, but those people who’d not been given legal status under the laws of the United States were given photo IDs, work authorization, and social security numbers, and the right to participate in these government programs that would appear to be contrary to existing law. So that would, to me, suggest an overreach. Part 2 1:19:12 Senator Patrick Leahy: Would you use our federal resources to investigate and prosecute sick people who are using marijuana in accordance with their state laws even though it might violate federal law? Jeff Sessions: Well, I won’t commit to never enforcing federal law, Senator Leahy, but absolutely it’s a problem of resources for the federal government. The Department of Justice under Lynch and Holder set forth some policies that they thought were appropriate to define what cases should be prosecuted in states that have legalized, at least in some fashion, some parts of marijuana. Leahy: Do you agree with those guidelines? Sessions: I think some of them are truly valuable in evaluating cases, but fundamentally, the criticism I think that was legitimate is that they may not have been followed. Using good judgment about how to handle these cases will be a responsibility of mine. I know it won’t be an easy decision, but I will try to do my duty in a fair and just way. 1:25:13 Senator Mike Lee: Are there separation-of-powers concerns arising out of the Department of Justice’s current approach to state marijuana laws? Jeff Sessions: Well, I think one obvious concern is that the United States Congress has made the possession of marijuana, in every state, and distribution of it an illegal act. If that’s something is not desired any longer, Congress should pass a law to change the rule. It’s not so much the attorney general’s job to decide what laws to enforce; we should do our job and enforce laws effectively as we’re able. 1:48:18 Senator Dianne Feinstein: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Just to begin, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all statements and written testimony sent to the committee concerning Senator Sessions be made part of the record, and I have some testimonies and letters. Chairman: Without objection, so ordered. Feinstein: Thank you very much. Senator Sessions, when I was a small child, it was during World War II, and my father took me to a racetrack south of San Francisco called Tanforan, and it had become a detention camp for Japanese American citizens, and during the length of World War II, well, thousands of families were held in this compound. And we checked with CRS that says no Japanese American was ever convicted of any sabotage against the United States during that period of time. Senator Lee, Senator Cruz, and I have tried together to enact a bill to assure that no American citizen or lawful permanent resident detained in the United States can be held indefinitely without charge or trial, pursuant to authorization of military force. So, here’s the question: do you believe that the government can, pursuant to a general authorization to use military force, indefinitely detain Americans in the United States without charge or trial? Jeff Sessions: Senator Feinstein, that’s an important question. Classically, the answer is yes. Classically, if you captured a German soldier, they could be held until the war ended. That was done, I’m sure, at the Civil War and most wars since. Feinstein: I’m talking about Americans. Sessions: I hear you. So, then, the question is, we’re in a war like we have now that’s gone on multiple years, and I would think the principal of law certainly would appear to be valid, but as reality dawns on us and wars might be even longer, it’s on us to discuss those issues. So I respect your willingness to think about that and what we should do, but in general I do believe, as Senator Graham has argued forcefully for many years, that we are in a war, and when members who—unlike the Japanese who were never proven to be associated with a military regime like the Japanese government, these individuals would have to be proven to be connected to a designated enemy of the United States. So I’ve probably explained more than I should, but that’s basically the arguments and the issues we’re facing. I respect your concerns, and I’m sure they will continue to be debated in the future. Feinstein: Well, let me just say a few things about that. I’ve served on the intelligence committee for fifteen years. I read all of it. I think I know as much as anybody about what’s happening in the United States, and this is not—these are Americans that we’re talking about. They can be picked up and detained and held without charge— Sessions: You’re talking about Americans. Feinstein: —of trial indefinitely. And that should not be the case. Sessions: Well, I understand your point, and a citizen of the United States has certain important rights. They cannot be abrogated. It is absolutely so. They cannot be detained without undergoing a habeas review, and the government surely has to prove that they are indeed connected sufficiently with an enemy action against the United States, so they couldn’t be detained. Feinstein: Well, I appreciate that. 1:52:32 Senator Dianne Feinstein: You were one of nine senators to vote against the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. It prohibited the imposition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of any person in the custody or control of U.S. personnel. You also voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator McCain in the 2016 Defense Authorization bill to limit interrogations to the techniques provided by the army field manual, which does not include waterboarding. Do you agree that the CIA’s former enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, are prohibited by this provision of law as now codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000dd? Jeff Sessions: It does appear to be clear that on the last act and McCain amendment would prohibit waterboarding. Feinstein:And you would enforce that. Sessions: I would enforce the law, yes. Feinstein: Thank you very much. 1:56:50 Senator John Kennedy: My name is John Kennedy. That’s really my name. 2:01:33 Senator John Kennedy: When a radical Islamic terrorist drives a truck into a group of people and kills them, we’re told that we should not judge all Muslims by the act of a few. And I agree with that. Don’t you think the same rule ought to apply when one or two law enforcement officers make a mistake? Don’t you think that same rule ought to apply to all the other 99.9 percent law enforcement officials out there who just get up every day and go to work and try to protect us? Jeff Sessions: Well, I really do. And I think those of us in high public office do need to be cautious about demeaning whole departments and whole groups of people, because within those, most any department you can find in America, surely most of the people are just wonderful public servants trying to do the right thing. So when we say these things, we can increase risk for them, we can make it harder for them to have relationships with the constituents where they’re serving, and actually result in an increase in crime and ineffectiveness in law enforcement. So, boy, these issues are—we can’t miss these issues. Kennedy: No. Part 3 3:20 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: Does a secular attorney have anything to fear from an Attorney General Sessions in the Department of Justice? Jeff Sessions: Well, no, and I used that word in the ninety-thousand-foot level of a little concern I have that we as a nation, I believe, are reaching a level in which truth is not sufficiently respected, that the very ideal, the idea, of truth is not believed to be real, and that all of life is just a matter of your perspective and my perspective, which I think is contrary to the American heritage. So that’s just a kind of a criticism of mine, but we are not a theocracy, nobody should be required to believe anything. I share Thomas Jefferson’s words on the Memorial over here—I swear eternal hostility over any domination of the mind of man—and I think we should respect people’s views and not demand any kind of religious test for holding office. Whitehouse: And a secular person has just as good a claim to understanding the truth as a person who is religious, correct? Sessions: Well, I’m not sure. In what method? Is it less objectively committed to— Whitehouse: In the methods that an attorney would bring to bear a case. Sessions: Well, let me just say we’re going to treat anybody with different views fairly and objectively. 59:04 Senator Chris Coons: We worked together to restore funding to the federal public defender service when it was cut by sequestration, and I think that’s because we both agreed that outcomes are more fair when there’s effective representation on both sides. One of the amendments I offered to that immigration bill would have provided counsel to children who were applying for refugee status because they were fleeing violence in their home countries, in U.S. immigration proceedings. Is that something you would support? Jeff Sessions: Senator Coons, as I understand it, that is the law, that you cannot provide lawyers to illegal entrants into the country, and I don’t believe it makes a distinguished—it distinguishes between minors and adults, but I may be wrong about that. I presume that’s why you’ve offered legislation to that effect to change established law, but in general I do not believe we can afford nor should we undertake to provide free lawyers for everybody that enters the country unlawfully. I think that would be a massive undertaking. So you’re talking about children specifically, I understand that. Coons: Specifically doesn’t matter... Sessions: And I think that’s a matter that Congress would need to decide what to do about. 1:02:25 Jeff Sessions: I would not favor a registry of Muslims in the United States—no, I would not—and I think we should avoid surveillance of religious institutions unless there’s a basis to believe that a dangerous or threatening illegal activity could be carried on there. 1:28:03 Senator Lindsey Graham: Let’s talk about the law of war. I think you were asked by Senator Feinstein about the indefinite detention. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld—this is Sandra Day O’Connor’s quote: There is no bar to this nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant—that case involved a U.S. citizen that was captured in Afghanistan and was held as an enemy combatant. Are you familiar with that case? Jeff Sessions: Generally, yes. Not as familiar as you, but I know you’ve studied at great depth. Graham: Well, this has been a military law. This is sort of part of what I did. Do your constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen stop at the nation’s shores, or do they follow you wherever you go? Sessions: Well, you have certain rights wherever you go. Graham: So if you go to Paris, you don’t give up your Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure. Could the FBI break into your hotel room in Paris and, basically, search your room without a warrant? Sessions:I don’t believe— Graham :No, they can’t. Your constitutional rights attach to you. So, to the people who say, well, he was in Afghanistan—that doesn’t matter. What the court is telling us, no American citizen has a constitutional right to join the enemy at a time of war. In Ray Quirin—that case involved German saboteurs who landed in Long Island. Are you familiar with this? Sessions: I’m very familiar with that case. I have read it. Graham: They were German saboteurs and had American-citizen contacts in the United States. They were all seized by the FBI and tried by the military. So, what I would tell Senator Feinstein and my other colleagues—the law is well settled here, that a United States citizen in other wars have been held as enemy combatants when the evidence suggests they collaborated with the enemy. Under the current law, if you’re suspected of being an enemy combatant, within a certain period of time—sixty days, I think—the government has to present you to a federal judge and prove by preponderance of the evidence that you’re a member of the organization they claim you to be a member of. Are you familiar with that—your habeas rights? Sessions: Correct, yes. Graham: So, as to how long an enemy combatant can be held, traditionally under the law of war, people are taken off the battlefield until the war is over or they’re no longer a danger. Does that make sense to you? Sessions: It does make sense, and that is my understanding of the traditional law of war. Graham: And the law of war is designed to, like, win the war. The laws around the law of war are designed to deal with conflicts and to take people off the battlefield—you can kill or capture them—and there’s no requirement like domestic criminal law, at a certain point in time they have to be presented for trial, because the goal of the law of war is to protect the nation and make sure you win the war. So when you capture somebody who’s been adjudicated a member of the enemy force, there is no concept in military law or the law of war that you have to release them in an arbitrary date because that would make no sense. So, all I’m saying is that I think you’re on solid ground and this idea of an American citizen being an enemy combatant is part of the history of the law of war, and I am very willing to work with my colleagues and make sure that indefinite detention is reasonably applied and that we can find due process rights that don’t exist in traditional law of war because this is a war without end. When do you think this war will be over? Do you think we’ll know when it’s over? Sessions: I’ve asked a number of witnesses in armed services about that, and it’s pretty clear we’re talking about decades before we have a complete alteration of this spasm in the Middle East that just seems to have legs and will continue for some time. That’s most likely what would happen. Graham: You’re about to embark on a very important job at an important time, and here’s what my suggestion would be: that we work with the Congress to come up with a legal regime that recognizes that gathering intelligence is the most important activity against radical Islam. The goal is to find out what they know. Do you agree with that? Sessions: That is a critical goal. Graham:And I have found that under military law and military intelligence gathering, no manual I’ve ever read suggested that reading Miranda rights is the best way to gather information. As a matter of fact, I’ve been involved in this business for 33 years, and if a commander came to me as a J.A.G. and said, we just captured somebody on the battlefield—you name the battlefield—they want their rights read to them, I would tell them they’re not entitled to Miranda rights. They’re entitled to Geneva Convention treatment, they’re entitled to humane treatment, they’re entitled to all the things that go with the Geneva Convention because the court has ruled that enemy combatants are subject to Geneva Convention protections. So, I just want to let you know, from my point of view, that we’re at war; I’m encouraged to hear that the new attorney general recognizes the difference between fighting a crime and fighting a war and that the next time we capture bin Laden’s son-in-law—if he’s got any more—I hope we don’t read him his Miranda rights in two weeks. I hope we keep him, humanely, as long as necessary to interrogate him to find out what the enemy may be up to. Does that make sense to you? Sessions:Well, it does. We didn’t give Miranda warnings to German and Japanese prisoners we captured, and it’s never been part of the—so they’re being detained and they’re subject to being interrogated properly and lawfully any time, any day, and they’re not entitled to a lawyer, and so forth. Graham: Right. And Miranda didn’t exist back in World War II, but it does now, but the law of the Hamdi case says this is very important, that you do not have to read an enemy combatant the Miranda rights. They do have a right to counsel in a habeas pursuit— Sessions: In a habeas corpus, you’re correct. Graham: —to see if the government got it right; you can hold them as long as it’s necessary for intelligence gathering; and you can try them in Article III course, you can try them in military commissions. As attorney general of the United States, would you accept that military commissions could be the proper venue under certain circumstances for terrorists? Sessions: Yes. Graham: Thank you. Hearing: Nomination of General John F. Kelly, USMC (Ret.) to be Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Government Affairs, January 10, 2017. Watch on C-SPAN Timestamps & Transcripts 1:37:18 Senator Kamala Harris: I’d like to ask you a few questions, starting with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, also known as DACA. Hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients around the country are afraid right now for what this incoming administration might do to them and also what it might do to their unauthorized family members. In order to receive DACA, these young people submitted extensive paperwork to the federal government, including detailed information regarding themselves and their loved ones. They also had to qualify, as you know, for the program; and in qualifying, each person’s case was reviewed and determined on a case-by-case basis: the young person must have not been convicted of a felony or a significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors; the young person must also not be deemed to pose a threat to national security or public safety; the young person must currently be in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general-education development certificate, also known as GED, and/or have been honorably discharged as a veteran of the Coast Guard or armed forces of the United States. Among other things, DACA applicants must submit proof of identity, proof of time and admission in the United States, proof of relevant student school completion or military status, and biometric information. As part of the DACA application process, we conduct biometric and biographic background checks against a variety of databases maintained by DHS and other federal agencies. If a DACA applicant knowingly makes a misrepresentation or fails to disclose facts in an effort to obtain DACA, it is a felony, and the applicant will be treated as an immigration-enforcement priority to the fullest extent permitted by law and be subject to criminal prosecution and/or removal from the United States. This means, obviously, that applicants to DACA know that if they’re not giving us the whole truth about their story, they’re putting a target on their own backs. At the time, the Department of Homeland Security assure them that it would follow its long-standing practice of not using such information for law-enforcement purposes except in very limited circumstances. These young people are now worried that the information that they provided in good faith to our government may now be used to track them down and lead to their removal. So my question is, do you agree that under DACA, and those young people have relied—by hundreds of thousands of them have relied—on our representations, do you agree with that, that we would not use this information against them? General John Kelly: The entire development of immigration policy is ongoing right now in terms of the upcoming administration. I have not been involved in those discussions. If confirmed, I know I will be involved in those discussions. I think there’s a big spectrum of people who need to be dealt with in terms of deportation— Harris: I’m speaking specifically about DACA.General Kelly: —and those categories would be prioritized. I would guess—I’m not part of the process right now—I would guess that this category might not be the highest priority for removal. I promise you, Senator, that I will be involved in the discussion. 1:45:00 Senator Rand Paul: We have on the books, and we passed about five years ago, a law that says that an American citizen can be indefinitely detained—not an American citizen overseas, not someone captured in Syria on a battlefield. Someone captured in the United States and accused of terrorism—accused of terrorism—can be kept indefinitely. They could be sent to Guantanamo Bay, but they could be sent to a variety of places. It’s never been used—and this president has said he wouldn’t use it, but he signed it anyway, much to the chagrin of some of us—but it is on the books. And I guess my question to you would be, do you think we can adequately arrest people in our country who are somehow a threat to our homeland security? Do you think the Constitution could be good enough, that due process in our courts of law in our country would work? Or would you think there’re going to have to be times when we’re just going to have to detain people without trial? General John Kelly: I’m pretty committed to the Constitution. I was not aware of the law—it surprises me—but I think we have enough laws to help us out in that regard. Paul: A couple of years ago they decided they’d use license plate screeners, and, apparently, they’re very rapid and they can collect hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of license plates an hour. But they decided they would go to a gun show, and why this particularly concerns me is you could also conceive the people at a gun show as exercising some sort of freedom of speech or some sort of ideological belief by being at a gun show, not just wanting to buy a gun, but actually defending their Second Amendment right to buy a gun. What alarms me is that if we’re going to scan license plates at a gun show, that we might go to a pro-life rally or a pro-abortion rally, depending on who’s in charge. I don’t want the government scanning people’s license plates. I don’t want them covering and getting all of our data just so we can possibly be safe some day from something. I want the individual to be protected, but I’m not against Homeland Security going after individuals and digging as deep as you want with the proper process. So what I would ask you is your opinion on how do we defend the country? Can we do it with the traditions of looking at individuals for whom we have suspicion, or are we going to have to collect all of this data and give up our privacy in the process? General Kelly: Senator, I would go with the traditional route. The scanning of the license plates, I mean, may be a reason—I can’t think of one right now. I’m not for the mass collection of data on people. I’d go the other way. Paul: And this is an amazing amount of information we can look at. If you had all the information of everyone’s Visa purchases in the country, there’s no end. But realize that this is a big part of what your job is, is people are going to be coming to you saying, protect us; we want to be safe, but at the same time, what are we willing to give up? Can we keep what we actually believe and what we are as a people, the freedom that you are committed to as a soldier? And I hope you’ll keep that in mind. General Kelly: Sir. Paul: Thank you. 2:15:08 General John Kelly: My law-enforcement friends tell me that in the case of drugs that come in—frankly, I’m not arguing for legalization for marijuana here; I’m just saying that the only drugs I’ve really ever concerned myself with at SouthCom were the three hard drugs. All the marijuana flow that we saw was coming from some of the Caribbean islands, south. So I’d just focus on the hard drugs. Hearing: Is the Department of Justice Adequately Protecting the Public from the Impact of State Recreational Marijuana Legalization?, Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, April 05, 2016. Watch on YouTube Senate Session: Republican Senators on Surveillance Bill Reauthorization, May 15, 2015. Jeff Sessions speaks at 28:18 Senate Session: Jeff Sessions Mocks Karl Rove, June 21, 2013. Additional Reading Article: 10 Things You Didn't Know about Gen. John Kelly by Sara Clarke, US News, January 17, 2017. Article: 10 things to know about Sen. Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump's pick for Attorney General by Amber Phillips, The Washington Post, January 10, 2017. Article: Sessions failed to disclose oil interests as required, ethics experts say by Tom Hamburger, The Washington Post, January 9, 2017. Article: Trump picks retired General John Kelly to lead Homeland Security, report says by Ben Jacobs and Spencer Ackerman, The Guardian, December 7, 2016. Article: Bowe Bergdahl, Facing Desertion Trial, Asks Obama for Pardon by Charlie Savage, New York Times, December 2, 2016. Webpage: State Marijuana Laws in 2016 Map, Governing the States and Localities, November 11, 2016. Article: Gutting Habeas Corpus by Liliana Segura, The Intercept, May 4, 2016. Press Release: Senators Introduce Restoration of America's Wire Act, Senator Dianne Feinstein, June 24, 2015. Article: The Destruction of Defendant's Rights by Lincoln Caplan, The New Yorker, June 21, 2015. Commentary: The Wire Act Ñ Don't Fix What Isn't Broken by John Pappas, Roll Call, March 18, 2015. Article: Department Of Justice Flip-Flops On Internet Gambling by Nathan Vardi, Forbes, December 23, 2011. Article: Holder accused of neglecting porn by Josh Gerstein, Politico, April 16, 2011. Article: American Lawbreaking by Tim Wu, Slate, October 15, 2007. Justice Dept. Memo May 5, 2005. Supreme Court Opinion: Hamdi vs Rumsfeld by Justice O'Connor, Supreme Court, June 28, 2004. References Legal Dictionary at Cornell University: Habeas Corpus U.S. Code: Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

This week's episode takes a deep dive into Justice Anthony Kennedy, including his background, his famous decisions and how similar he is other noted Republican-but-also-super-liberal Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.  Brett and Nazim also discuss how his writing on the same marriage cases may affect the transgender rights cases likely to be arriving within the next year.  The law false-starts around (04:47) but then goes for real at (07:22).

Light the Night Streamathon September 24 1:00 PM - 1:00 AM MDT DUSTING OFF THE DEGREE - Religion and Misogyny THIS DAY IN HISTORY - September 15 * 1831 – The locomotive John Bull operates for the first time in New Jersey on the Camden and Amboy Railroad * 1835 – HMS Beagle, with Charles Darwin aboard, reaches the Galápagos Islands. The ship lands at Chatham or San Cristobal, the easternmost of the archipelago. * 1935 - The Nuremberg Laws deprive German Jews of citizenship * 1981 - The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approves Sandra Day O'Connor to become the first female justice of the Supreme Court of the United States * 1981 – The John Bull becomes the oldest operable steam locomotive in the world when the Smithsonian Institution operates it under its own power outside Washington, D.C. POLITICS AND RELIGION * SSA employee would rather lose his job than watch diversity video | Via Raw Story * Dr. Bob Sears is facing discipline from the medical board for recommending to not get vaccinated * Parents wants charges against church for baptizing her autistic son | Via WWJTD * Woman uses Indiana’s RFRA as defense for child abuse * Clinton says we need a president who’s a praying person * Trump supporter doesn’t want most women to vote SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY * Human respiratory tissue test shows similar effect of vapor to ambient air * 10 percent of Earth’s wilderness lost since 1990s * Four new giraffe species revealed * Sixth sense claimed to be found (not Bruce Willis) FEEDBACK * Randy via Facebook * Monica via Facebook * Pat via Facebook * New iTunes Review - Acrowatz This episode is brought to you by: Dark Matter Sponsor - >US$35.00 * Travis Megee Nuclear Sponsor - US$20.00 - US$35.00 per month * Russ from the Kitsap Atheists & Agnostics * Frank * Darryl Goossen Platinum Sponsor - US$8.00 - US$19.00 per month * Virginia Dawn * Paul Burkey * BT Motley * George Gold Sponsor - US$4.00 - US$7.00 per month * The Flying Skeptic * Renee Davis-Pelt * Mark * Mike * LaTonya * Duncan * Jaded Zappa * Alex * Will * Henry * Alan * Rachel * Bumboclaat * Inciting Incident Bronze Sponsor - < US$4.00 per month * Peter * Heather * Shawn * Al from South Carolina * Archway Hosting provides full featured web hosting for a fraction of the cost of traditional shared hosting. You get all the benefits of shared hosting, without the sticker shock or extra fees. Check them out at archwayhosting.com. You can find us online at www.atheistnomads.com, follow us on Twitter @AtheistNomads, like us on Facebook, email us at contact@atheistnomads.com, and leave us a voice mail message at (541) 203-0666. Theme music is provided by Sturdy Fred.

“I get to help students and applicants that dream of being lawyers be successful in the application process,” says our guest Adam Almaraz, who is the director of JD admissions at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. Read More... The post THCC93- From High School to Law School – The Info You Need Interview with Adam Almaraz, Director of JD Admissions at Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University appeared first on Taming The High Cost of College.

“I get to help students and applicants that dream of being lawyers be successful in the application process,” says our guest Adam Almaraz, who is the director of JD admissions at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. Read More... The post THCC93- From High School to Law School – The Info You Need Interview with Adam Almaraz, Director of JD Admissions at Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University appeared first on Taming The High Cost of College.

Gram Ponante is America's beloved porn journalist. Some people expose political scandals. Some report on scientific breakthroughs. Gram has dedicated his writing to the world of porn! This week's Manwhore Podcast talks about the history, politics, and ethics of the adult entertainment industry! PLUS: porn industrial complex, Donald Trump, sex education, Larry Flynt, condoms! Go visit www.GramPonante.com and buy his book A Porn Valley Odyssey! Books & Court Cases Mentioned: Girlvert People v. Freeman Hustler Magazine v. Falwell Jack Stagliano obscenity case Support the podcast and gain access to exclusive bonus episodes by donating to The Manwhore Podcast! Make your pledge today by visiting my Patreon page! This week's episode is sponsored by Larry Flynt. Not really, but I wish he would. The man is an American hero. Email your comments, questions, or boobies to manwhorepod@gmail.com. www.ManwhorePod.com

Once upon a time, the idea of a woman serving on the United States Supreme Court seemed strange, perhaps unattainable. Then along came Sandra Day O’Connor, and, a few years later, Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The Court, and the nation, haven’t been the same since. This week, author Linda Hirshman will tell us all about it. Her new book about the High Court’s first two female Justices and their personal and professional relationships is called Sisters-in-Law: How Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World.

We've traveled to San Francisco this week, and our SF friends Andy and Long join us to talk about what Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court would mean for LGBT folks. Is there a chance that Obama's nominee could actually make it onto the court, and what sort of queer cases could he hear? We make some wild guesses, and also talk about a gay pirate broadcaster that we've tastefully decided should be called Butt Pirate Radio. Further digressions involve the time Sandra Day O'Connor played against a boy's volleyball team, and a chicken that would be president. Also, who would be a better president: Donald Trump or PewDiePie?

Live from the NerdMelt Showroom in Los Angeles, Greg squawks about Switzerland, sushi and Sandra Day O’Connor.

On today’s show, we’re talking with Linda Hirshman, a former attorney and author of the new dual biography, Sisters in Law: How Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World (Harper, September 2015). Hirshman argues that these first two women to sit on the Supreme Court could…

Aug. 30, 2014. Sandra Day O'Connor, H. Alan Day and Lynn Wiese Sneyd appear at the 2014 Library of Congress National Book Festival in Washington, D.C. Speaker Biography: Sandra Day O'Connor made history when she became the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court in 1981, following her unanimous confirmation by the U.S. Senate. She served on the court until 2006. In her home state of Arizona, O'Connor had been an elected official and the first woman majority leader in the nation as the Republican leader in the Arizona Senate. O'Connor will appear with her brother, H. Alan Day, and his co-author, Lynn Wiese Sneyd, during which she will interview them about their book, "The Horse Lover: A Cowboy's Quest to Save the Wild Mustangs" (Bison Books/University of Nebraska Press). Speaker Biography: In his memoir "The Horse Lover: A Cowboy's Quest to Save the Wild Mustangs" (Bison Books/University of Nebraska Press), H. Alan Day recounts his mission to find a sanctuary for unadoptable wild horses previously warehoused by the Bureau of Land Management. His efforts resulted in the Mustang Meadows Ranch of South Dakota, the first government-sponsored wild-horse sanctuary established in the United States. In "The Horse Lover," Day recollects both his frustrating and adventurous times on the ranch, and he ultimately reveals the valuable lessons of loyalty, perseverance and hope that he gained along the way. Day is the co-author of the best-selling memoir "Lazy B," written with his sister, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. His memoir, "The Horse Lover," is written with Lynn Wiese Sneyd and includes a foreword by Sandra Day O'Connor. Speaker Biography: Lynn Wiese Sneyd is the owner of LWS Literary Services, an agency specializing in book publicity, proposals, editing and ghostwriting. She is the co-author of the memoir "The Horse Lover: A Cowboy's Quest to Save the Wild Mustangs" (Bison Books/University of Nebraska Press) by H. Alan Day. In addition, she wrote "Holistic Parenting" and co-authored "Healthy Solutions," which received an Arizona Book Award. Wiese Sneyd earned a B.A. in English from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is a past recipient of a Ragdale residency. She currently resides in Tucson, Ariz. For transcript, captions, and more information, visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=6374

H Alan Day. Day’s upbringing branded him a cowboy from the day he was born. He was part of the 3rd generation to grow up on the 200,000-acre Lazy B cattle ranch straddling the high deserts of southern Arizona & New Mexico. The ranching & cowboy lifestyle appealed to him so greatly that after graduating from the University of Arizona, he returned to manage Lazy B for the next 40 years. During his career, he received numerous awards for his dedicated stewardship of the land.  Alan & his sister, Sandra Day O’Connor, co-authored the New York Times bestselling memoir, Lazy B. Lynn Wiese Sneyd. Lynn founded & manages LWS Literary Services, which specializes in book publicity, ghostwriting, editing, query letters, & book proposals. She is the author of Holistic Parenting: Raising Children to a New Physical, Emotional and Spiritual Well-Being & co-author of Healthy Solutions: A Guide to Simple Healing and Healthy Wisdom, winner of Arizona Book Award for best health & wellness book.  Eunice Nisbett, Book Marketing Strategist, Savvy BestSellers, launched this Show as a FREE book marketing resource for authors. Are you a non-fiction business author? Sign up for one on one coaching with Eunice & learn powerful book marketing strategies that will position you as a leader in your field & help you create a lucrative online brand!

H Alan Day. Day’s upbringing branded him a cowboy from the day he was born. He was part of the 3rd generation to grow up on the 200,000-acre Lazy B cattle ranch straddling the high deserts of southern Arizona & New Mexico. The ranching & cowboy lifestyle appealed to him so greatly that after graduating from the University of Arizona, he returned to manage Lazy B for the next 40 years. During his career, he received numerous awards for his dedicated stewardship of the land.  Alan & his sister, Sandra Day O’Connor, co-authored the New York Times bestselling memoir, Lazy B. Lynn Wiese Sneyd. Lynn founded & manages LWS Literary Services, which specializes in book publicity, ghostwriting, editing, query letters, & book proposals. She is the author of Holistic Parenting: Raising Children to a New Physical, Emotional and Spiritual Well-Being & co-author of Healthy Solutions: A Guide to Simple Healing and Healthy Wisdom, winner of Arizona Book Award for best health & wellness book.  Eunice Nisbett, Book Marketing Strategist, Savvy BestSellers, launched this Show as a FREE book marketing resource for authors. Are you a non-fiction business author? Sign up for one on one coaching with Eunice & learn powerful book marketing strategies that will position you as a leader in your field & help you create a lucrative online brand!

 Alan is the author of the new memoir The Horse Lover: A Cowboy's Quest to Save the Wild Mustangs. He also co-authored with his sister Sandra Day O'Connor the New York Times bestselling Lazy B, their memoir about growing up on a southwestern cattle ranch.   JJ McKeever is a writer who has worked in the government, business, and nonprofit worlds, travelled around a lot, and never gets tired of watching people and figuring out how life works.  People liked to read his commentary and suggestions on practical approaches to some of the most vexing problems facing life in America today.  Rob Liano is a Best Selling Author, a Certified Life Coach and Sales Strategist. His methodology has catapulted several businesses to multi-million-dollars in production. A visionary trailblazer and thought leader, Rob is a greatly respected entrepreneur who’s consistently sought out for his groundbreaking innovation. John Joseph Creek, whose book teaches audiences that it is a lucky individual who knows that spirituality is recognizing that we have the power to change the things in our lives that   bring us pain. It is also a wise individual that knows how to act on this knowledge and experience true transformation. 

A friend tells the story of striking up a conversation with a hip looking man in his late 20s-early 30s in a movie line on the west side of LA shortly before the 2004 election between George Bush and John Kerry. He asked the young man who he planned to vote for, he answered that he hadn't made up his mind. My friend said to him, "Two words. Supreme Court." To which the young man replied, "Oh, are we voting for them too?" While we may be disappointed in his apparent lack of civics knowledge, in his own way, he spoke the truth. The most lasting actions a president takes may be his appointments to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices serve for as long as they wish or as long as they are able. Their decisions very often set precedents that can live forever. Bush had appointed John Roberts Chief Justice in his first term, but according to today's guest, it was his second term appointment of Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor that really solidified the Roberts Court. O'Connor had been a much more moderate conservative than Alito has proven to be. The center of the court shifted to the right, which may matter little in decisions with large majorities - more than 50% of cases each term are decided unanimously or by 8-1 or 7-2 votes -- but can be crucial in decisions decide 5-4. MARCIA COYLE has chosen to focus her book THE ROBERTS COURT: The Struggle for the Constitution on four such 5-4 decisions - Citizens United on campaign finance; District of Columbia v Heller on gun control; on race in school choice; and on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

Sandra Day O'Connor blathers about the "rule of law" while Scientific American casts doubts on the alleged health value of anti-oxidants

Gary L. Francione is an animal rights activist, proponent of veganism, Professor of Law and Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers. Previously he taught at the University of Pennsylvania, worked as an attorney in New York, and clerked for Sandra Day O’Connor. He is the author of several books including Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement and, more recently, co-author of The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation. For all of the talk of biocentrism and anthropocentrism that dominated many of the early episodes of The Conversation, animals have not been a major theme within the project. Chris McKay, Robert Zubrin, and David Keith all discussed animals in passing, but for Gary they are central to a discussion of what he considers the biggest issue of our era: the tension between moral realism and moral relativism. Questions of nonviolence, commodification, and empathy pervade our conversation, but Gary pairs his abstract notions with a lot of concrete examples—this episode deals with the visceral immediacy of everyday life and doesn't threaten to float away in a philosophical balloon. I think you will like this episode, just as I think it will challenge you. In terms of connections, there are points where Gary could almost be responding directly to Richard Saul Wurman's moral relativism. Lawrence Torcello will be on your mind, not merely because I mention him in the introduction, but because Gary's conversation provokes questions of relativism, pluralism, and how we can work towards the broader good. On another note, we're adding a new co-host to The Conversation: Neil Prendergast will be joining the project this episode. Micah and I aren't going anywhere but, as Micah's work schedule gets busier, we wanted to bring another voice on board so we can resume our weekly schedule and have two hosts on deck. We're also excited because Neil brings a fresh sensibility and body of knowledge to our concluding discussions. This will be fun.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor accepting the Radcliffe Medal, June 2009

Minx and Alan discuss several mentions of poly in the mainstream media--from advice columnists to Sandra Day O'Connor's love vee to poly geezers, we got your poly in the media! Email cunningminx@gmail.com, call 206-202-POLY or visit the blog at www.polyweekly.com