Podcasts about SCOTUSblog

In an unusual late-night order, the Supreme Court temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants being held in Texas using an 18th century law called the Alien Enemies Act. The order came in response to an emergency petition filed by the ACLU, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting. John Yang speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog for more. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a key redistricting case that could reshape how states draw districts by race. A group of voters identifying as "non-African American" argues Louisiana's congressional map, which created two majority-Black districts after a federal court found the previous one discriminatory, is biased toward Black voters. Geoff Bennett speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a key redistricting case that could reshape how states draw districts by race. A group of voters identifying as "non-African American" argues Louisiana's congressional map, which created two majority-Black districts after a federal court found the previous one discriminatory, is biased toward Black voters. Geoff Bennett speaks with Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

  The Friday Five for March 7, 2025: Starbucks and Dunkin' Spring 2025 Menus Amazon Announces Alexa+ Changes to MA and Part D Disaster/Emergency SEP Effects of ACA Subsidy Expiration by Demographic Clarification on HHS Proposed Rule Comment Periods   Starbucks and Dunkin' Spring 2025 Menus: Beams, Sophia. “Dunkin' Brings Back Two Fan-Favorite Drinks Just in Time for Spring.” Bhg.Com, Better Homes & Gardens, 5 Mar. 2025, www.bhg.com/dunkin-spring-menu-2025-11690288. Tyko, Kelly. “Dunkin' Spring Menu Launches, Nondairy Surcharge Removed.” Axios.Com, Axios, 5 Mar. 2025, www.axios.com/2025/03/05/dunkin-spring-menu-2025-dunkalatte-pistachio-coffee. “New Iced Cherry Chai Joins Lavender Drinks on Starbucks Spring Menu.” About.Starbucks.Com, Starbucks, 3 Mar. 2025, about.starbucks.com/stories/2025/new-iced-cherry-chai-joins-lavender-drinks-on-starbucks-spring-menu/. Palan, Michael. “We Tried Starbucks' New Spring Menu Items, and These 2 Drinks Stole the Show.” Tastingtable.Com, Tasting Table, 3 Mar. 2025, www.tastingtable.com/1801587/starbucks-reserve-new-spring-menu-2025-drinks-food/.   Amazon Announces Alexa+: “50 Things to Try with Alexa+.” Aboutamazon.Comt, Amazon, 26 Feb. 2025, www.aboutamazon.com/news/devices/new-alexa-top-features. Haselton, Todd, et al. “Amazon Alexa Event Live Blog: All the News from the Keynote.” Theverge.Com, The Verge, 26 Feb. 2025, www.theverge.com/news/618261/amazon-alexa-event-live-blog-2025. Panay, Panos. “Introducing Alexa+, the next Generation of Alexa.” Aboutamazon.Com, Amazon, 26 Feb. 2025, www.aboutamazon.com/news/devices/new-alexa-generative-artificial-intelligence. Diaz, Maria. “Not All Echo Devices Will Get Alexa+ Initially - See If Yours Made the List.” Zdnet.Com, ZDNET, 28 Feb. 2025, www.zdnet.com/article/alexa-plus-will-run-on-select-echo-devices-see-if-yours-is-on-the-list/. Ellis, Cat. “Want to Try Alexa+? Here Are the Echo Devices It'll Work On.” Techradar.Com, TechRadar, 27 Feb. 2025, www.techradar.com/home/smart-speakers/want-to-try-alexa-plus-here-are-the-echo-devices-itll-work-on. Aten, Jason. “With Its AI-Powered Alexa+, Amazon Just Put Apple on Notice.” Inc.Com, Inc, 26 Feb. 2025, www.inc.com/jason-aten/with-its-ai-powered-alexa-plus-amazon-just-put-apple-on-notice/91153371. Stanley, Alyse. “You Can Get Alexa+ Early — Here's How to Sign up.” Tomsguide.Com, Tom's Guide, 1 Mar. 2025, www.tomsguide.com/ai/you-can-get-alexa-early-heres-how-to-sign-up.   Changes to MA and Part D Disaster/Emergency SEP: Crowe, Edward. “New Medicare FEMA SEP Rules.” Pfsinsurance.Com, Pinnacle Financial Services, 29 Jan. 2025, pfsinsurance.com/blog/new-medicare-fema-sep-rules-crowe-associates. “Change to Beneficiary Use of the SEP for Individuals Affected by a Government Entity-Declared Disaster or Other Emergency.” Cms.Gov, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 3 Dec. 2024, 20178637.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/20178637/42%20ea%20-%20Product%20Profile.pdf.   Effects of ACA Subsidy Expiration by Demographic: Lambrew, Jeanne. “Enhanced ACA Marketplace Tax Credits Worked—And Shouldn't Be Eliminated.” Tcf.Org, The Century Foundation, 7 Aug. 2024, tcf.org/content/commentary/enhanced-aca-marketplace-tax-credits-worked-and-shouldnt-be-eliminated/. Richards, Carson, and Sara  R. Collins. “Enhanced Premium Tax Credits for ACA Health Plans: Who They Help, and Who Gets Hurt If They're Not Extended.” Commonwealthfund.Org, Commonwealth Fund, 18 Feb. 2025, www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/explainer/2025/feb/enhanced-premium-tax-credits-aca-health-plans. Sullivan, Jennifer. “Enhanced Tax Credits Keep ACA Marketplace Coverage Affordable for 2025.” Cbpp.Org, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 18 Nov. 2024, www.cbpp.org/blog/enhanced-tax-credits-keep-aca-marketplace-coverage-affordable-for-2025. “How Much More Would People Pay in Premiums If the ACA's Enhanced Subsidies Expired?” Kff.Org, KFF, 18 Dec. 2024, https://www.kff.org/interactive/how-much-more-would-people-pay-in-premiums-if-the-acas-enhanced-subsidies-expired/ Ortaliza, Jared, et al. “Inflation Reduction Act Health Insurance Subsidies: What Is Their Impact and What Would Happen If They Expire?” Kff.Org, KFF, 26 July 2024, www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/issue-brief/inflation-reduction-act-health-insurance-subsidies-what-is-their-impact-and-what-would-happen-if-they-expire/. Banthin, Jessica, et al. “Who Benefits from Enhanced Premium Tax Credits in the Marketplace?” Urban.Org, Urban Institute, June 2024, www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/Who_Benefits_from_Enhanced_Premium_Tax_Credits_in_the_Marketplace.pdf. Lo, Justin, and Cynthia Cox. “Who Might Lose Eligibility for Affordable Care Act Marketplace Subsidies If Enhanced Tax Credits Are Not Extended?” Kff.Com, KFF, 28 Feb. 2025, www.kff.org/policy-watch/who-might-lose-eligibility-for-affordable-care-act-marketplace-subsidies-if-enhanced-tax-credits-are-not-extended/.   Clarification on HHS Proposed Rule Comment Periods: “Compilation of the Social Security Laws.” Ssa.Gov, Social Security Administration, www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1871.htm. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025. “HHS Rescinds Policy Regarding Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking – Implications for Health Care Industry.” Www.Hoganlovells.Com, Hogan Lovells, 3 Mar. 2025, www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/hhs-rescinds-policy-regarding-noticeandcomment-rulemaking-implications-for-health-care-industry. “Policy on Adhering to the Text of the Administrative Procedure Act.” Federalregister.Gov, Federal Register, 3 Mar. 2025, www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/03/2025-03300/policy-on-adhering-to-the-text-of-the-administrative-procedure-act. Goldman, Maya. “RFK Jr. Move to Kill Public Comment Roils Providers.” Axios.Com, Axios, 3 Mar. 2025, www.axios.com/2025/03/03/rfk-transparency-rule-elimination-fallout. Cueto, Isabella. “RFK Jr. Moves to Eliminate Public Comment on HHS Decisions.” Statnews.Com, STAT, 28 Feb. 2025, www.statnews.com/2025/02/28/rfk-jr-eliminating-public-comment-hhs-decisions-richardson-waiver/. Muoio, Dave. “RFK Jr. Orders HHS to End ‘extra-Statutory' Notice, Public Comment Process in Rulemaking.” Fiercehealthcare.Com, Fierce Healthcare, 3 Mar. 2025, www.fiercehealthcare.com/regulatory/rfk-jr-orders-hhs-end-notice-public-comment-process-rulemaking. Howe, Amy. “Supreme Court Strikes down Chevron, Curtailing Power of Federal Agencies.” Scotusblog.Com, SCOTUSblog, 26 July 2024, www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/.   Resources: Diversify Your Insurance Portfolio & Reap Real Rewards: https://lnk.to/asg651 FAQs About Registering with Ritter Insurance Marketing: https://ritterim.com/blog/faqs-about-registering-with-ritter-insurance-marketing/   How To Better Market Yourself: https://ritterim.com/blog/how-to-better-market-yourself/   Medicare Advantage Open Enrollment Do's and Don'ts: https://lnk.to/oRft1p SNP Summit Registration is Live: https://lnk.to/asgf20250228   Follow Us on Social! Ritter on Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/RitterIM Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/ritter.insurance.marketing/ LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/company/ritter-insurance-marketing TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/@ritterim X, https://x.com/RitterIM and Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/user/RitterInsurance     Sarah on LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/in/sjrueppel/ Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/thesarahjrueppel/ and Threads, https://www.threads.net/@thesarahjrueppel  Tina on LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/in/tina-lamoreux-6384b7199/   Not affiliated with or endorsed by Medicare or any government agency. Contact the Agent Survival Guide Podcast! Email us ASGPodcast@Ritterim.com or call 1-717-562-7211 and leave a voicemail.

This Day in Legal History: Bell and Gray File PatentsOn February 14, 1876, both Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray filed patent applications for the invention of the telephone, setting off one of the most famous legal battles in U.S. history. Bell's lawyer submitted his paperwork to the U.S. Patent Office just hours before Gray's, leading to a dispute over who truly invented the device. Gray's filing was a "caveat," an intention to patent, while Bell's was a full application, giving him a legal advantage. When the patent was granted to Bell on March 7, 1876, Gray challenged it, arguing that Bell had improperly incorporated elements of Gray's liquid transmitter design.The controversy led to numerous lawsuits, with Gray and others accusing Bell of fraud and claiming he had seen Gray's filing before finalizing his own. Despite these challenges, the courts consistently ruled in Bell's favor, affirming his rights to the telephone patent. This legal victory gave Bell's company, later known as AT&T, control over the rapidly growing telephone industry. The case highlighted issues of patent timing, intellectual property rights, and legal strategy in technological innovation.The Bell-Gray dispute remains a landmark moment in patent law, demonstrating how the slightest timing difference can determine the outcome of major technological advancements. It also underscored the competitive nature of the late 19th-century invention boom, where multiple inventors often worked on similar ideas simultaneously.Democratic attorneys general from 16 states issued guidance defending diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEI) programs against recent executive orders from former President Trump. Led by Massachusetts AG Andrea Joy Campbell and Illinois AG Kwame Raoul, they argued that DEI initiatives remain legal under existing anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Trump administration's orders call for eliminating DEI efforts from federal agencies and scrutinizing private-sector programs, conflating lawful diversity policies with illegal hiring preferences, the AGs said.Major corporations like Google and Amazon have adjusted or rebranded their DEI initiatives in response to legal uncertainty. The guidance clarifies that policies promoting workplace diversity—such as broad recruitment efforts and impact assessments—are legally distinct from unlawful hiring preferences. Courts have long upheld employers' ability to consider the effects of their policies on different groups to prevent discrimination claims.Meanwhile, Republican AGs, including Missouri's Andrew Bailey, are pushing businesses to abandon DEI programs. Bailey recently sued Starbucks, accusing the company of violating civil rights laws through its DEI initiatives. The conflicting state-level actions highlight the growing legal and political battle over corporate diversity policies.Democratic AGs Defend DEI Against ‘Misleading' Trump DirectivesTwo federal judges will decide whether Elon Musk's government cost-cutting team, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), can access sensitive U.S. government systems. Since his appointment by President Trump last month, Musk has led efforts to eliminate wasteful spending, but critics argue his team lacks legal authority to handle Treasury payment systems and sensitive agency data.Judge Jeannette Vargas in Manhattan will consider a request from Democratic attorneys general to extend a temporary block preventing DOGE from accessing Treasury systems that process trillions in payments. The states argue Musk's team could misuse personal data and disrupt funding for health clinics, preschools, and climate programs.In Washington, Judge John Bates will review a separate request from unions seeking to prevent DOGE from accessing records at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Labor Department, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Bates previously ruled in favor of the Trump administration but will now reconsider after the unions amended their lawsuit.Democratic AGs have also filed a separate lawsuit claiming Musk's appointment is unconstitutional and seeking to block him from making personnel decisions or canceling contracts. While courts have blocked several of Trump's initiatives, his administration has continued firing government workers and cutting foreign aid, mostly targeting programs opposed by conservatives.Musk's DOGE team: Judges to consider barring it from US government systems | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore funding for hundreds of foreign aid contractors affected by a 90-day funding freeze. The ruling temporarily blocks the administration from canceling foreign aid contracts and grants that were in place before Trump took office on January 20.  The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by two health organizations that rely on U.S. funding for overseas programs. The Trump administration had halted all foreign aid payments, claiming the pause was necessary to review program efficiency and alignment with policy priorities. However, Judge Amir Ali ruled that the government had not provided a rational justification for the sweeping suspension, which disrupted agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and organizations worldwide.  Trump has also ordered federal agencies to prepare for major job cuts, leading to layoffs among government workers without full job protections. His administration has already removed or sidelined hundreds of civil servants and top officials, part of a broader effort to reshape the federal workforce and consolidate power among political allies.Judge orders US to restore funds for foreign aid programs | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the release of Supreme Court advocate Tom Goldstein, three days after he was jailed for allegedly violating pretrial release conditions in a tax fraud case. Goldstein, a prominent appellate lawyer and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, was indicted last month on 22 counts of tax evasion related to his high-stakes poker winnings and alleged misuse of law firm funds to cover debts.Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy Sullivan ruled that there was insufficient evidence to keep Goldstein incarcerated for allegedly concealing cryptocurrency transactions. However, the judge imposed new restrictions, including monitoring his internet use and prohibiting cryptocurrency transfers.Prosecutors claimed Goldstein secretly moved millions in crypto after his initial release, prompting his second arrest. Goldstein argued the transactions occurred in 2023 and that he did not own the accounts in question. While the judge found Goldstein's evidence created enough doubt to justify his release, he also suggested Goldstein may still have access to hidden funds that could enable him to flee. Goldstein has pleaded not guilty, and his legal team maintains the government's case lacks proof.Supreme Court veteran Goldstein wins release again in tax crimes case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Gustav Mahler.Gustav Mahler (1860–1911) was a visionary composer and conductor whose symphonies bridged the late Romantic and early modern eras. Known for his deeply personal and expansive works, Mahler infused his music with themes of life, death, and transcendence. His Symphony No. 2, often called the Resurrection Symphony, is one of his most ambitious compositions, blending massive orchestral forces with choral elements to explore the journey from despair to spiritual renewal.The symphony's fifth and final movement, Im Tempo des Scherzo – Aufersteh'n, is a dramatic culmination of the work's themes. It begins in chaos, with the orchestra depicting the terror of the apocalypse, before gradually moving toward light and resolution. The music builds in intensity until the choir enters softly, singing the text of Friedrich Klopstock's Resurrection Ode, which speaks of rising again after death. Mahler expands on these words, adding his own lines about redemption and eternal life.The movement swells to one of the most powerful climaxes in symphonic history, with soaring brass, thunderous percussion, and a triumphant chorus proclaiming victory over death. The final moments are a breathtaking ascent, as the music dissolves into radiant serenity. This movement is more than just a finale; it is an emotional and philosophical journey, offering a sense of transcendence that has resonated with audiences for over a century.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 2, the fifth and final movement – Im Tempo des Scherzo.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

At its height, the influential SCOTUSBlog provided Supreme Court coverage that drew comparisons to the comprehensive way ESPN reports on sports. But while the blog was becoming required reading for attorneys, law students, and journalists, its founder was allegedly racking up millions in gambling and tax debts. High-profile Washington attorney Tom Goldstein was indicted last month on federal charges allegedly tied to an ultra-high-stakes poker hobby involving billionaires, professional gamblers, Hollywood stars, and trips to Macau. Goldstein—a seasoned litigator known as a risk-taker both in court and at the poker table—was arrested Feb. 10 after prosecutors said he violated the terms of his release by hiding cryptocurrency accounts from pretrial services and transferring funds without approval. He has since filed an emergency motion challenging his detention. On this episode of our podcast, investigative reporter Alexia Fernández Campbell and legal reporter Holly Barker discuss the story that's riveting the legal world. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

This Day in Legal History: Milošević Stands TrialOn February 12, 2002, the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević began at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. It was the first time a former head of state was tried for war crimes by an international tribunal. Milošević faced 66 charges, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws of war, stemming from conflicts in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo during the 1990s. Prosecutors accused him of orchestrating ethnic cleansing campaigns that led to mass killings, deportations, and atrocities, particularly against Bosniaks, Croats, and Kosovar Albanians. Defiantly refusing to recognize the tribunal's legitimacy, Milošević insisted on representing himself in court. The trial, one of the most complex in modern history, lasted over four years, involving thousands of documents and hundreds of witnesses. His defense centered on denying personal responsibility, blaming NATO, and portraying himself as a protector of Serbs. However, the proceedings never reached a conclusion—Milošević died of a heart attack in his prison cell on March 11, 2006, before a verdict could be issued. His death frustrated victims who sought justice and left legal scholars debating whether the trial had succeeded in advancing international accountability. The case, despite its abrupt end, set a precedent for prosecuting heads of state for war crimes and influenced later trials, including those of Charles Taylor and Omar al-Bashir.The U.S. Justice Department under President Donald Trump has significantly reduced its anti-corruption enforcement, halting prosecutions and weakening key laws. Officials have pulled back on enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bans corporate bribery abroad, arguing that American companies should not be penalized for standard international business practices. Prosecutors were also ordered to drop a criminal case against New York Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat with ties to Trump, citing his re-election campaign and other priorities. In addition, the department has disbanded efforts to sanction Russian oligarchs and dismissed veteran prosecutors who handled cases against Trump. Attorney General Pam Bondi framed these actions as an attempt to root out political bias in the justice system. Ethics officials and independent government watchdogs have been fired or reassigned, including inspectors general and whistleblower protection leaders. Critics, including legal scholars and former officials, warn that these moves align law enforcement with Trump's political agenda and weaken anti-corruption safeguards established after Watergate. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has expressed concern and vowed to investigate, while some Democrats and former prosecutors see the changes as an effort to dismantle legal mechanisms designed to hold public officials accountable.Trump's Justice Department hits the brakes on anti-corruption enforcement | ReutersGail Slater, President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the Justice Department's antitrust division, is set to face tough questioning from the Senate during her confirmation hearing. As a former economic adviser to Vice President JD Vance and a veteran antitrust attorney, Slater would oversee major cases against tech giants like Google and Apple if confirmed. Senate Democrats are expected to press her on maintaining enforcement and independence, especially amid concerns that the administration is undermining the DOJ's traditional nonpartisanship. Senator Cory Booker has raised alarms about potential staffing cuts at the DOJ's antitrust division, warning they could weaken protections for consumers. Other Democrats, including Senators Peter Welch and Amy Klobuchar, plan to question Slater on her commitment to continuing efforts to lower prices in healthcare, housing, and agriculture. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Mike Lee has voiced support for Slater, expecting her to carry on Trump's push against Big Tech monopolies. Slater's background includes roles at Fox Corp, Roku, and a now-defunct tech industry lobbying group, raising further concerns about her potential ties to the companies she would regulate. Her confirmation will be a key test of the administration's approach to antitrust enforcement and corporate consolidation.Trump's DOJ antitrust nominee to be grilled on enforcement | ReutersTom Goldstein, co-founder of SCOTUSblog, has asked to be released from jail after prosecutors accused him of violating his release conditions by secretly moving millions in cryptocurrency. Goldstein was arrested after a Maryland federal court found probable cause that he had misled officials about his finances. The government claims he used undisclosed crypto wallets for large transactions while arguing in court that he needed his home's equity to fund his defense.  Goldstein's attorneys argue the government is mistaken, stating that he does not own the wallets in question. They claim text messages cited by prosecutors actually show Goldstein directing funds to a third party to settle a debt, not controlling the wallets himself. Goldstein faces charges of tax evasion, aiding false tax returns, failing to pay taxes, and lying on a loan application, with prosecutors alleging he concealed gambling income and misused his firm's funds. He has pleaded not guilty and maintains he will be exonerated at trial. His legal team, including lawyers from Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, has filed an emergency motion for his release, and he has also been permitted to represent himself in court.Tom Goldstein Seeks Release, Denies Control Over Crypto WalletsNew Jersey's proposed bill, S1756, is a smart adjustment to the state's senior property tax relief system, allowing older homeowners to downsize without losing their eligibility for tax benefits. Right now, seniors who move must restart the tax reimbursement process, which can mean higher property taxes and a financial disincentive to selling. By making these benefits portable, the bill removes an unnecessary barrier to housing mobility, freeing up larger homes for younger families without adding excessive costs to the state budget.  This approach is a model for other states struggling with housing shortages and inefficient tax incentives, but it's not perfect. The bill's $500,000 income cap is too high, providing relief to seniors who may not need it. A more reasonable threshold—like 500% of the federal poverty level—would better target those on fixed incomes. Additionally, a cap on home values would ensure benefits don't go to wealthy homeowners with expensive properties but low taxable income. A reasonable solution would be to apply tax relief only to the first 150% of a state's median home price, preventing subsidies from disproportionately benefiting the wealthy.  Ultimately, this bill corrects a major flaw in New Jersey's tax policy without overhauling the system or eliminating relief for seniors who need it. But states following this example should refine their programs to ensure they help those who truly need assistance, rather than offering broad-based entitlements that distort housing markets.NJ Senior Property Tax Relief Needs Nuance to Be Most Effective This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

You've got to know when to hold 'em. Know when to fold 'em. ------ Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein, co-founder of SCOTUSblog, is on the wrong side of the law facing a multi-count indictment related to the alleged fallout of a hard-core gambling lifestyle. All while routinely arguing multiple cases in front of the Supreme Court. Legen...wait for it...dary. Also Proskauer proves that every rose has its thorn and Yale stares down on of the most epic downgrades in law school history.

In this episode, Kate and Ben discuss the Supreme Court taking on the TikTok legal case. This case is the "ban" that was enacted by Congress on the basis of national security concerns. This episode includes a quick update after the Supreme Court releases their opinion.Research/Resources:“Supreme Court skeptical of ban on TikTok” by Amy Howe. Published in SCOTUSblog website January 10, 2025 and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-skeptical-of-ban-on-tiktok/ Supreme Court of the United State Calendars and Lists https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/calendarsandlists.aspx“Frank McCourt and Kevin O'Leary formally offer to buy TikTok after securing investors, debt financing, and a go-ahead from the White House” by Paolo Confino. Published in Fortune website January 10, 2025 and available on https://fortune.com/2025/01/10/frank-mccourt-kevin-oleary-tiktok-offer-investors-debt-financing-trump-biden-approval/“'Shark Tank's' Kevin O'Leary and billionaire Frank McCourt want to buy TikTok. One problem: It's not for Sale” by Clare Duffy. Published in CNN Business website January 9, 2025 and available on https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/09/tech/tiktok-ban-buy-frank-mccourt-kevin-oleary-bytedance/index.html “TikTok challenges its U.S. ban at the Supreme Court. Here's what to know” by Bobby Allyn. Published in NPR website January 10, 2025 and available on https://www.npr.org/2025/01/10/nx-s1-5254236/tiktok-supreme-court-what-to-know“Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban” by Amy Howe. Published in SCOTUSBlog website January 17, 2025 and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-upholds-tiktok-ban/Check out our website at http://artofdiscussing.buzzsprout.com, on Facebook at Art of Discussing and on Instagram @artofdiscussing.Got a topic that you'd like to see discussed? Interested in being a guest on our show? Just want to reach out to share an opinion, experience, or resource? Leave us a comment below or contact us at info@artofdiscussing.com!! We'd love to hear from you! Keep Discussing!Music found on Pixabay. Song name: "Clear Your Mind" by Caffeine Creek Band"

You've got to know when to hold 'em. Know when to fold 'em. ------ Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein, co-founder of SCOTUSblog, is on the wrong side of the law facing a multi-count indictment related to the alleged fallout of a hard-core gambling lifestyle. All while routinely arguing multiple cases in front of the Supreme Court. Legen...wait for it...dary. Also Proskauer proves that every rose has its thorn and Yale stares down on of the most epic downgrades in law school history. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Monday, January 20th, 2025Today, Americans celebrate Martin Luther King Jr's legacy and the struggle for freedom, equality, and justice. A prominent leader in the modern civil rights movement, Dr. King was a tireless advocate for racial equality, working class, and the oppressed around the world. TikTok is back online after a farce rescue from the man who originally wanted to ban it; Trump launches a crypto rug pull scam; Elon Musk is dispatching agents across government agencies; the SCOTUSblog publisher has been indicted on tax charges; CNN is moving Jim Acosta's show to the middle of the night; President Biden makes a statement on the Equal Rights Amendment and commutes the sentences of 2,500 non violent drug offenders; the US grounds SpaceX Starship after another explosion; Vivek Ramaswamy will announce a run for Ohio governor; CBS kisses the ring by discussing a settlement with Trump in their defamation suit; Chicago and San Diego brace for immigration enforcement operations; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You Naked WinesSo go to NakedWines.com/DAILYBEANS with the code AND password DAILYBEANS for six bottles of wine for $39.99.Thank You Helix Sleep Go to HelixSleep.com/dailybeans for 27% Off Sitewide plus 2 Free Dream Pillows with your mattress purchase.Stories:Supreme Court blog publisher Tom Goldstein, a high-stakes poker player, indicted on tax charges (Politico)Vivek Ramaswamy will announce run for Ohio governor 'shortly' (Cincinnati Enquirer)ICE planning major enforcement operation in Chicago after Trump inauguration (Julia Ainsley | NBC News)Musk and Ramaswamy sending agents across US government to seek cuts | Trump administration (Robert Tait  | The Guardian)Trump's Latest, and Most Questionable, Crypto Launch, Explained (Ruth Murai |  Mother Jones)Good TroubleI am launching a new social media platform, wholly owned and funded by YOU, our contributing listeners, and not by a billionaire that's going to be sitting on the dais today with a would-be dictator. The Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | Creating podcasts | PatreonWatch DutyWatch Duty Fire Public Safety Information (App) Cal FireIncidents | CAL FIREFrom The Good NewsHealth Plans | TRICAREUnderdog Rescue - MNThe Movement and the “Madman” | American Experience | PBSFurball Farm Cat Sanctuary - MNObergefell v. Hodges | OyezSiriusXM Progress Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for Jan. 3, 2025Federal Court of Appeals Throws Out GOP Legislator Challenge to Michigan's Prop 2 Pro-Voter Reforms.  But Sleep with the Light On.In November 2022, Michigan voters passed a constitutional amendment enshrining voting protections and expanding ballot access. After the legislature implemented the voters' directive, GOP legislators sued, claiming that only the legislature could make such changes.  To view the whole script of today's report, please go to our website.Today's LinksArticles & Resources:American Democracy Minute - Michigan a Democracy Bright Spot as it Implements Proposition 2 Constitutional Amendment Protecting and Expanding Voting RightsAmerican Democracy Minute - Michigan Case Which Used the ‘Independent State Legislature Theory' to Challenge Voting Rights Ballot Questions is Thrown OutU.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals - Decision in the Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.SCOTUS Blog - (2023) Supreme Court rules against North Carolina Republicans over election law theoryAmerican Democracy Minute - Moore v. Harper Hangover:  SCOTUS Decision OKs Court Review, but Also Cracks the Door for a Weaker Version of the Independent State Legislature TheoryGroups Taking Action:Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans,  Detroit Downriver A. Phillip Randolph Institute, Detroit Disability PowerRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #ISLTheory #MoorevHarper #Michigan #VotingRights #DemocracyReform

Over the last few years, the United States has led the world in the fight against climate change by passing some of the most impactful and largest investments in infrastructure and related regulatory reforms ever. Together, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law seek to deploy nearly $1 trillion in climate positive infrastructure investment over the next decade. At the same time, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions that together significantly curtail the authority of executive agencies charged with implementing and defending legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. In its most recent term, the Court issued four such decisions including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturns a 40-year precedent and ensures the courts will have a commanding voice over climate policy and regulation for the foreseeable future.In this episode, Chad Reed unpacks the details and implications of Loper Bright and related Court decisions with Kevin Poloncarz, a partner with Covington & Burling and one of the top climate change attorneys in the United States. Links:Supreme Court strikes down Chevron, curtailing power of federal agencies (SCOTUSblog, July 2024)CleanLaw – Suite of Supreme Court Decisions Undermine Administrative LawPalmaz VineyardsEpisode recorded September 12, 2024 Email your feedback to Chad, Gil, and Hilary at climatepositive@hasi.com or tweet them to @ClimatePosiPod.

In this episode, Ben and Kate discuss the most recent decisions released by the U.S. Supreme Court in early June 2024. Research/Resources:Supreme Court of the United State Calendars and Lists (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/calendarsandlists.aspx)Supreme Court of the United States Opinions of the Court – 2023 (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/23)SCOTUSblog (https://www.scotusblog.com/)“Announcement of opinions for Friday, June 14” by SCOTUSblog. Published in SCOTUSblog website June 14, 2024 and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-friday-june-14/Check out our website at http://artofdiscussing.buzzsprout.com, on Facebook at Art of Discussing and on Instagram @artofdiscussing.Got a topic that you'd like to see discussed? Interested in being a guest on our show? Just want to reach out to share an opinion, experience, or resource? Leave us a comment below or contact us at info@artofdiscussing.com!! We'd love to hear from you! Keep Discussing!Music found on Pixabay. Song name: "Clear Your Mind" by Caffeine Creek Band"

As the Supreme Court concludes a blockbuster term, Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog recaps the significant cases ranging from abortion to homelessness and beyond. A presidential historian explains the significance of the Supreme Court decision to grant former President Donald Trump immunity. Mark Irons catches up with the National Eucharistic Pilgrimage's North Marian Route in Chicago, as Christ comes to the Windy City. Colm Flynn sits down with the Vatican's first auditor general to hear why his proposed audit was shut down. And we're joined by award-winning actor and producer Demetrius Grosse on why he wants his new film “Sound of Hope” to motivate people to take action in caring for foster care children.

Hal Robins is known for his radio broadcasts and public performances, as well as for his participation in the Church of the SubGenius (as Dr. Howland Owll, Master of Church Secrets). He has worked in film and television and is a poet and playwright. Robins is also a fine artist and cartoonist. In this featured conversation with Rev. Andrew Genus, he shares his wit and insight into the world of the SubGenius, the current political state we find ourselves in, and his upcoming appearance at PubeFest in Bethlehem, PA featuring the Ask Dr. Hal Show and other SubGenius shenanigans. In this final show of the season before summer break, co-hosts Wendy Sheridan and Robin Renée start off in This Fortnight I Learned with some lighthearted factoids about dolphins and tennis balls. All the News We Can Handle was more was enough with the presidential debate and SCOTUS decisions, a few of which deal with presidential immunity, ordinances prohibiting camping within city limits by people who are homeless, and overturning the 1984 decision in Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council. In The Artscape, Wendy interviews Robin about recent creative projects and process, challenges and small victories. Robin names Kai Wright Lefty of the Week. Happy a Happy 4th of July and have a great summer! Reach out anytime and keep in touch on social media @leftscape. Things to do: Check out the Ask Dr. Hal Show! Learn the truth about J. R. "Bob" Dobbs and The Church of the SubGenius! Attend the Second Annual PubeFest! July 5-7, 2024 View the featured image, Dobbs Ourobouros, by Hal Robins. Read more about Supreme Court decisions on SCOTUSblog. Listen to the Saved By Zero show with host DJ Andrew Genus. Watch "Nick Lowe - Alison (Elvis Costello cover)" https://youtu.be/oPJ5dNFh-Rc?si=xQZ3TP1DU5hfmHh7  

Here's what's happening today: This episode is all about the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling.-via Washington Post, Oyez, SCOTUS Blog, NY Times, and Twitter-via AP News, Oyez, Vox, and JacobinWatch this episode as a video at www.kimmoffat.com/thenewsRegister to vote, or check your registration at wearevoters.turbovote.orgTake the pledge to be a voter at raisingvoters.org/beavoterdecember. - on AmazonSubscribe to the Substack: kimmoffat.substack.comA full transcript (with links) is available at kimmoffat.com/hwh-transcriptsAs always, you can find me on Instagram/Twitter @kimmoffat and TikTok @kimmoffatishere

In this episode, Ben and Kate discuss state laws and proposed changes to state laws and how the abortion legislation/conversation may or may not effect the 2024 election.Research/Resources:“Where State Abortion Laws Stand Without Roe” by Julia Haines. Published in U.S. News website May 20, 2024 and available on https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state“Reagan-era emergency health care law is the next abortion flashpoint at the Supreme Court” by Tierney Sneed. Published in CNN Politics website April 24, 2024 and available on https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/20/politics/abortion-supreme-court-idaho-emergency-care/index.html “Supreme Court considers EMTALA preemption of state abortion bans” by Alicia Macklin and Rachel Zacharias. Published in Reuters April 18, 2024 and available on https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/supreme-court-considers-emtala-preemption-state-abortion-bans-2024-04-18/ “Here's where the 2024 presidential candidates stand on abortion” by Nadine El-Bawab. Published in ABS News October 4, 2023 and available on https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2024-presidential-candidates-stand-abortion/story?id=103312983“Supreme Court appears likely to allow abortion drug to remain available” by Amy Howe. Published on Scotusblog website March 26, 2024 and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/supreme-court-appears-likely-to-allow-abortion-drug-to-remain-available/“Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe.” Published in Guttmacher website May 15, 2025 and available on https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/arizona/abortion-policies “What to know about abortion in Arizona under the near-total 1864 ban” by Jacques Billeaud and Morgan Lee. Published in AP News website April 10, 2024 and available on https://apnews.com/article/arizona-abortion-ban-what-to-know-797a4bbbc738497fe2284d6870c5be24“Abortion and the 2024 election: There is no easy way out for Republicans” by Elaine Kamarck. Published in Brookings website April 17, 2024 and available on https://www.brookings.edu/articles/abortion-and-the-2024-election-there-is-no-easy-way-out-for-republicans/ Check out our website at http://artofdiscussing.buzzsprout.com, on Facebook at Art of Discussing and on Instagram @artofdiscussing.Got a topic that you'd like to see discussed? Interested in being a guest on our show? Just want to reach out to share an opinion, experience, or resource? Leave us a comment below or contact us at info@artofdiscussing.com!! We'd love to hear from you! Keep Discussing!Music found on Pixabay. Song name: "Clear Your Mind" by Caffeine Creek Band"

Can a former U.S. president face criminal prosecution for things they did while in office? The case the Supreme Court is taking up next week could have major ramifications for former President Donald Trump and future presidents.  Supreme Court reporter Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog and Howe on the Court is breaking down the arguments on both sides. She previously served as counsel in cases before the Supreme Court and has taught litigation at Stanford and Harvard Law schools. Then we'll hear from the president and CEO of the National Consitution Center, Jeffrey Rosen. He teaches law at George Washington University Law School and his new book is "The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America."  Learn more about our guests: https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/shownotes Sign-up for our bonus weekly email: https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/email Become an INSIDER for ad-free episodes: https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider This episode was sponsored by: Go to Zocdoc.com/newsworthy and download the Zocdoc app for FREE. Then find and book a top-rated doctor today. Get 20% OFF Honeylove by going to honeylove.com/newsworthy #honeylovepod To advertise on our podcast, please reach out to sales@advertisecast.com #DonaldTrump #SupremeCourt #Immunity    

When we left you at the end of part 1, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo had begun a killing spree that took them from Tacoma, Washington, through Arizona, Louisiana, and Maryland. By October 2002, they had killed or wounded 10 people, with Muhammad pointing his finger and Malvo pointing his gun. Malvo believed himself to be a soldier in the fight to free the marginalized people of the world. Muhammad made him his acolyte, traveling across the country, playing him anti-American propaganda through headphones as he slept, putting him through a grueling physical regimen, as well as making him eat a sparse vegetarian diet. Muhammad told him that white people were “devils” and that they had to prepare for the oncoming race war. For 30 days, they would kill 6 white people a day, until the US government agreed to their terms and paid them off to go away. Join us now for part 2 of this chilling true story.Download the game "June's Journey" on Apple iOS: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/junes-journey-hidden-objects/id1200391796"June's Journey" on Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.wooga.junes_journey_hidden_object_mystery_game&hl=en&gl=US&pli=1Sources:Vice documentary "I, Sniper"The History Channel's "Crime of the Century," episode "The Beltway Snipers"King 5 News:https://www.king5.com/article/news/dc-snipers-first-intended-victim-speaks-out/281-332833536Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/opening-shot-146761Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/lee-boyd-malvo-10-years-after-dc-area-sniper-shootings-i-was-a-monster/2012/09/29/a1ef1b42-04d8-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/10/01/timeline-dc-sniper-attacks/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/11/01/gun-store-cant-account-for-weapon-tied-to-sniper-case/ee54a3d2-a53c-44e8-9423-50ce4115c28b/WUSA 9 News: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/20-years-later-paul-laruffa-survivor-of-dc-snipers-malvo-muhammad-is-not-obsessing-but-hell-never-forget-either/65-055e1e42-c72e-4bab-b393-286eefe88037NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/us/polite-but-dogged-sniper-suspect-offers-defense.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss https://wtop.com/supreme-court/2019/10/beltway-sniper-victim-hopes-lee-boyd-malvo-gets-chance-at-rehabilitation-before-scotus/https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/us/polite-but-dogged-sniper-suspect-offers-defense.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/us/dc-area-sniper-fast-facts/index.htmlTucson News: https://tucson.com/news/local/crime/d-c-snipers-allegedly-targeted-tucsonan-in-02/article_64f562f8-5b2d-529a-b567-c28d822c48bd.html Psych News: https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.39.23.00390013CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/10/sprj.dcsp.sniper.beaten/index.html ​​SCOTUS Blog: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Muhammad-stay-application-11-3-091.pdfHistory.com: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/washington-d-c-sniper-john-muhammad-convictedFollow us, campers!Patreon (join to get all episodes ad-free, at least a day early, an extra episode a month, and a free sticker!): https://patreon.com/TrueCrimeCampfirehttps://www.truecrimecampfirepod.com/Facebook: True Crime CampfireInstagram: https://gramha.net/profile/truecrimecampfire/19093397079Twitter: @TCCampfire https://twitter.com/TCCampfireEmail: truecrimecampfirepod@gmail.comMERCH! https://true-crime-campfire.myspreadshop.com

Do you remember Snow White, campers? You know, the princess whose step mother was so jealous of her beauty that she cursed her with a poison apple? Today's case is like that. Someone whose wrath and anger was so terrible that it harmed everyone it touched. To him, not getting his way was a fate worse than death and in order to right the wrongs, he'd commit crimes that would change American lives forever. With the gift of a single pastry, he would ensure a child's loyalty so completely that the child would kill for him. He was a manipulator, a magician, and along with the naive fool that accompanied him, he would kill dozens of people. Join us for Part 1 of this chilling true crime story.Sources:Vice documentary "I, Sniper"The History Channel's "Crime of the Century," episode "The Beltway Snipers"King 5 News:https://www.king5.com/article/news/dc-snipers-first-intended-victim-speaks-out/281-332833536Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/opening-shot-146761Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/lee-boyd-malvo-10-years-after-dc-area-sniper-shootings-i-was-a-monster/2012/09/29/a1ef1b42-04d8-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/10/01/timeline-dc-sniper-attacks/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/11/01/gun-store-cant-account-for-weapon-tied-to-sniper-case/ee54a3d2-a53c-44e8-9423-50ce4115c28b/WUSA 9 News: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/20-years-later-paul-laruffa-survivor-of-dc-snipers-malvo-muhammad-is-not-obsessing-but-hell-never-forget-either/65-055e1e42-c72e-4bab-b393-286eefe88037NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/us/polite-but-dogged-sniper-suspect-offers-defense.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss https://wtop.com/supreme-court/2019/10/beltway-sniper-victim-hopes-lee-boyd-malvo-gets-chance-at-rehabilitation-before-scotus/https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/us/polite-but-dogged-sniper-suspect-offers-defense.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/us/dc-area-sniper-fast-facts/index.htmlTucson News: https://tucson.com/news/local/crime/d-c-snipers-allegedly-targeted-tucsonan-in-02/article_64f562f8-5b2d-529a-b567-c28d822c48bd.html Psych News: https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.39.23.00390013CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/10/sprj.dcsp.sniper.beaten/index.html ​​SCOTUS Blog: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Muhammad-stay-application-11-3-091.pdfHistory.com: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/washington-d-c-sniper-john-muhammad-convictedFollow us, campers!Patreon (join to get all episodes ad-free, at least a day early, an extra episode a month, and a free sticker!): https://patreon.com/TrueCrimeCampfirehttps://www.truecrimecampfirepod.com/Facebook: True Crime CampfireInstagram: https://gramha.net/profile/truecrimecampfire/19093397079Twitter: @TCCampfire https://twitter.com/TCCampfireEmail: truecrimecampfirepod@gmail.comMERCH! https://true-crime-campfire.myspreadshop.com

For years, rear view mirrors have urged us to be aware that "objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear." And if you think about it, that's a pretty heady statement for a piece of automotive equipment -- reminding drivers that nothing in reality is exactly what it seems. That was certainly the case for a bunch of despondent youngsters and their families in Glasgow, Scotland, upon entering what was billed to be an interactive, mind-bending, immersive Willy Wonka experience. Instead, the tots and weary parents were faced with something much more reminiscent of a meth lab.   A wonka-style Fyre Fest? You better believe the comparison was drawn.    Around the same time, across the pond, a larger discussion of business liability was discussed in the Supreme Court. The subject? Section 230, a "sword and shield" sort of law that protects companies like Facebook and others from liability based on what people say on their platforms, and provides them with the right to boot folks off of their platforms at their discretion. But perhaps what's most interesting about this story is its inability to be neatly placed in either a red or blue box, politically speaking. Either way, experts are saying that the Internet as we know it hinges upon the sanctity of this law.   So hop on in this haunted gondola ride to the twisted chocolate factory that is this episode of JOURNOS, decide for yourself if this section 230 thing should go the way of a greedy child turned into a blueberry (rolled back) or protected, like a whimsical chocolatier in a funny hat.    NOTES E! News Clip on Wonka Fest//Fyre Fest Clip//NYT on 230//NPR on 230//Solid Primer on 230//Biden and 230//HBR on 230//ScotusBlog on 230//NYT on 230...in '96!//FOSTA-SESTA  

Issue before the US Supreme Court on appeal:Whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot.For links to the articles below, see the SCOTUSblog at https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-anderson/:SCOTUSblog CoverageA packed courtroom for the Trump ballot case (Mark Walsh, February 8, 2024)Supreme Court appears unlikely to kick Trump off Colorado ballot (Amy Howe, February 8, 2024)Eric Olson on disqualifying Trump from the presidency (Nate Mowry, February 7, 2024)Supreme Court to decide whether insurrection provision keeps Trump off ballot (Amy Howe, February 2, 2024)Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump plea to remain on Colorado ballot (Amy Howe, January 5, 2024)Trump asks Supreme Court to keep him on 2024 Colorado ballot (Amy Howe, January 3, 2024)

In this episode, Kate and Ben discuss the cases that the Supreme Court is hearing in the first half of 2024.Research:“Supreme Court of the United States Granted and Noted List October Term 2023 Cases for Argument.” Published in the Supreme Court website Jan 22, 2024 and available on  https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/23grantednotedlist.pdf“Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.”  Published in SCOTUSblog website and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/“Moody v. NetChoice, LLC.”  Published in SCOTUSblog website and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moody-v-netchoice-llc/ “NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton.” Published in SCOTUSblog website and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/netchoice-llc-v-paxton/“Supreme Court to hear major case on power of federal agencies” by Amy Howe. Published in the SCOTUSblog website Jan 16, 2024 and available on  https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-to-hear-major-case-on-power-of-federal-agencies/“Court schedules February argument session” by Amy Howe. Published in the SCOTUSblog website Jan 5, 2024 and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/court-schedules-february-argument-session/“Government power, from federal agencies to counties, highlights January session” by Ellena Erskine. Published in the SCOTUSblog website Jan 8, 2024 and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/government-power-from-federal-agencies-to-counties-highlights-january-session/“North Dakota truck stop objects to federal allowance for debit-card processing fees” by Kalvis Golde. Published in the SCOTUSblog website May 13, 2023 and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/north-dakota-truck-stop-objects-to-federal-allowance-for-debit-card-processing-fees/“February oral argument scheduled for ‘good neighbor' pollution rule challenges” by Amy Howe. Published in the SCOTUSblog website Dec 20, 2023 and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/12/february-oral-argument-scheduled-for-stay-applications-in-good-neighbor-pollution-rule-challenges/“Trump v. Anderson.” Published in SCOTUSblog website and available on https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-anderson/Check out our website at http://artofdiscussing.buzzsprout.com, on Facebook at Art of Discussing and on Instagram @artofdiscussing.Got a topic that you'd like to see discussed? Interested in being a guest on our show? Just want to reach out to share an opinion, experience, or resource? Leave us a comment below or contact us at info@artofdiscussing.com!! We'd love to hear from you! Keep Discussing!Music found on Pixabay. Song name: "Clear Your Mind" by Caffeine Creek Band"

General Motors is planning higher-octane cash returns for investors in an attempt to restore confidence in its main gig — making vehicles that are not electric. We’ll get into what this could signal for the broader EV industry. And, many of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s regulatory powers are on the line in a current Supreme Court case. We’ll examine what the case has to do with conservative justices’ disdain for the administrative state. Plus, a National Spelling Bee champion’s secret to success. Here’s everything we talked about today: “GM Plans $10 Billion Stock Buyback in Bid to Assuage Investors” from The Wall Street Journal “Supreme Court's conservatives voice concerns about SEC's in-house enforcement” from The Hill “Supreme Court to consider multi-pronged constitutional attack on SEC” from SCOTUSblog “Major OxyContin case headlines December session” from SCOTUSblog Opinion | “I won the National Spelling Bee. This is what it takes to master spelling.” from The Washington Post If you've got a question, comment or submission for a state drink, send them our way. We're at 508-UB-SMART or email makemesmart@marketplace.org.

General Motors is planning higher-octane cash returns for investors in an attempt to restore confidence in its main gig — making vehicles that are not electric. We’ll get into what this could signal for the broader EV industry. And, many of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s regulatory powers are on the line in a current Supreme Court case. We’ll examine what the case has to do with conservative justices’ disdain for the administrative state. Plus, a National Spelling Bee champion’s secret to success. Here’s everything we talked about today: “GM Plans $10 Billion Stock Buyback in Bid to Assuage Investors” from The Wall Street Journal “Supreme Court's conservatives voice concerns about SEC's in-house enforcement” from The Hill “Supreme Court to consider multi-pronged constitutional attack on SEC” from SCOTUSblog “Major OxyContin case headlines December session” from SCOTUSblog Opinion | “I won the National Spelling Bee. This is what it takes to master spelling.” from The Washington Post If you've got a question, comment or submission for a state drink, send them our way. We're at 508-UB-SMART or email makemesmart@marketplace.org.

Host Gregg N. Sofer welcomes back to the podcast Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, a case that has the potential to vastly alter the way the SEC initiates and adjudicates enforcement proceedings, as well as its ability to choose its own in-house venue for those proceedings.Gregg N. Sofer BiographyFull BiographyGregg counsels businesses and individuals in connection with a range of criminal, civil and regulatory matters, including government investigations, internal investigations, litigation, export control, sanctions, and regulatory compliance. Prior to entering private practice, Gregg served as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas—one of the largest and busiest United States Attorney's Offices in the country—where he supervised more than 300 employees handling a diverse caseload, including matters involving complex white-collar crime, government contract fraud, national security, cyber-crimes, public corruption, money laundering, export violations, trade secrets, tax, large-scale drug and human trafficking, immigration, child exploitation and violent crime.Richard Epstein BiographyRichard A. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, and the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.Professor Epstein has published work on a broad range of constitutional, economic, historical, and philosophical subjects. He has taught administrative law, antitrust law, communications law, constitutional law, corporation criminal law, employment discrimination law, environmental law, food and drug law, health law, labor law, Roman law, real estate development and finance, and individual and corporate taxation.Epstein's most recent book publication is The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law (2020). Other works include The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government (2014); Design for Liberty: Private Property, Public Administration, and the Rule of Law (2011); The Case against the Employee Free Choice Act (2009); Supreme Neglect: How to Revive the Constitutional Protection for Private Property (2008); How the Progressives Rewrote the Constitution (2006); Overdose (2006); and Free Markets under Siege: Cartels, Politics, and Social Welfare (2005).He received a BA degree in philosophy summa cum laude from Columbia in 1964; a BA degree in law with first-class honors from Oxford University in 1966; and an LLB degree cum laude, from the Yale Law School in 1968. Upon graduation he joined the faculty at the University of Southern California, where he taught until 1972. In 1972, he visited the University of Chicago and became a regular member of the faculty the following year.He has been a senior fellow at the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics since 1984 and was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1985. In 2011, Epstein was a recipient of the Bradley Prize for outstanding achievement. In 2005, the College of William & Mary School of Law awarded him the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize.Additional ResourcesJarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 20-61007 (5th Cir. May 18, 2022).SCOTUSblog, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy

Do you hate hidden hotel, housing, airline, ticketing, banking, and other corporate fees? Do you want Congress to do something about them? In this episode, learn about the wide range of unreasonable fees being reported to Congress during hearings and examine what proposals could have bipartisan support. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes FTC Authority Ronald Mann. Apr 23, 2021. SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court of the United States. April 22, 2021. Junk Fee Overview Ashish A. Pradhan. May 19, 2023. The National Law Review. Will Kenton. January 24, 2023. Investopedia. Brian Deese et al. October 26, 2022. White House Briefing Room Blog. October 20, 2022. Federal Trade Commission. Brian Canfield et al. July 7, 2021. Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of Law. Internet *Federal Communications Commission Healthcare August 8, 2022. Federal Trade Commission. Banking/Payments Lindsey D. Johnson. July 26, 2023. Consumer Bankers Association. July 11, 2023. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. Offices of Consumer Populations and Markets. May 23, 2023. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. October 26, 2022. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. September 28, 2022. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. August 16, 2022. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. August 16, 2022. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Joe Valenti. March 30, 2022. * Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Blog. January 26, 2022. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. December 7, 2020. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Newsroom. December 28, 2018. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. Housing July 19, 2023. White House Briefing Room. March 14, 2023. National Consumer Law Center. Jennifer Ludden. January 13, 2023. WBUR. Airlines Reid Bramblett. Frommer's. Suzanne Rowan Kelleher. Mar 7, 2023. Forbes. U.S. Department of Transportation. U.S. Department of Transportation. December 13, 2022. U.S. Department of Transportation. November 2022. Statista. Rosie Spinks. June 1, 2018. Quartz. May 2011. Jones Day. Hotels November 17, 2021. Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. Christina Jelski. Mar 12, 2021. Travel Weekly. November 28, 2012. The Federal Trade Commission. Ticketing June 20, 2018. U.S. House of Representatives. Anne Bucher. June 13, 2018. Top Class Actions. “Susan Wang and Rene' Lee v. StubHub, Inc. Case” [No. CGC-18-564120]. The Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. Cars June 23, 2022. Federal Trade Commission. Laws Bills Audio Sources July 26, 2023 Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Witnesses: Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Director of Housing Advocacy, Atlanta Legal Aid Society Manager Director, Patomak Global Partners Clips Michelle Henry: In the consumer finance space, we recently filed a multi-state lawsuit against Mariner Finance, a Wall Street private equity-owned installment lender. Our lawsuit alleges that Mariner charged consumers junk fees for hidden add-on products that consumers either did not know about or did not agree to buy. These hidden add-on products, such as credit insurance and auto clubs, are typically low- or no-value products. Consumers left Mariner believing that they had entered into an agreement to borrow and repay over time a certain amount of money. In reality, because of these hidden junk fees, Mariner added hundreds to thousands of dollars to the total amount a consumer owed. The cost of the junk fees is staggering. For a random sample of loans originated in Pennsylvania in December of 2020, Mariner charged each consumer an average of $1,085 in junk fees for an average of $3,394 in cash borrowed. Michelle Henry: We also had a significant junk fee settlement in 2018 with Wells Fargo. This settlement stemmed from Wells charging its auto finance customers millions in junk fees. Despite evidence that many customers already had the required car insurance, Wells improperly charged more than 2 million accounts for force-placed insurance. To resolve the multi-state action, Wells agreed to pay states $575 million. Michelle Henry: In 2021, we announced the landmark junk fee settlement with Marriott International. For many years, travelers had been misled by the published rates offered by hotels for a night stay, only later to be hit with the mandatory resort fees when they were checking in. Thanks to our settlement, Marriott now has a policy in place to be upfront and transparent in the disclosure of mandatory fees, including resort fees, as part of the total price of a hotel stay, allowing consumers to compare total costs for hotels and find the one that is the best fit for them. Marriott was the first hotel chain to formally commit to the upfront disclosure of resort fees as part of the initial advertised price. We hope others will follow. Michelle Henry: In the end, what we are fighting here for is basic fairness and transparency. When consumers are shopping online or in person, they deserve to understand what a loan, a house, or a vacation will cost and exactly what key terms they're agreeing to. At the same time, all businesses deserve to compete on an even playing field, where the price is the price with no hidden surprise fees. Lindsey Siegel: My name is Lindsay Siegel and I'm the Director of Housing Advocacy at Atlanta Legal Aid, which provides free civil legal services to families with low incomes in the metro Atlanta area. Today, I will focus on the rental housing market and how predatory and hidden rental fees gouge families living in poverty and make their rent even more unaffordable than it already is. Miss Dixon is a single mother who found an online listing for an apartment in the fall of 2020. The advertisement said it rented for $1,400 per month. It did not list any other monthly fees she would be required to pay. She applied and paid $525 through the landlord's online portal, which covered her $50 application fee, a $175 moving fee, and a $300 screening fee, all of which were non-refundable. She was not able to see the lease or the apartment she'd be renting, but she knew if she did not pay sight unseen she would lose the apartment. And when her application was approved a few weeks later, the landlord charged her another $200 approval fee. She finally received and signed a copy of her lease just two days before she was slated to move in. It was 50 pages long and contained to eight different addenda. She had expected to pay her rent and for water. She didn't expect to be responsible for a package locker fee, a trash removal fee, a separate valet trash fee, a pest control fee, a technology package fee, an insurance fee, and a credit reporting fee. When the fees added up, $83 had been tacked on to her monthly rent. And to make matters worse, Miss Dixon's landlord did not accept the rent by cash, check, or money order. When she paid through the landlord's online portal she was charged another $72-per-payment convenience fee. The low income renters Atlanta Legal Aid represents have an extreme power imbalance with their landlords. The high demand for rental housing, especially at the more affordable end of the market, makes some landlords believe they can easily get away with unfair and deceptive lease terms and rental practices. The bait and switch Miss Dixon experienced where the landlord advertise the rent as one price only to raise it much higher with junk fees after she had spent hundreds of dollars up front is a far too common practice of many investor landlords in the Atlanta area. Low income renters like Miss Dixon become trapped. She couldn't afford to walk away from a predatory lease two days before she was supposed to move in, even if she realized it would be unaffordable. Of particular concern are the use of high application fees. They often far exceed the cost of running a report, and most renters have to pay them several times before finding a home to rent. We've heard reports that some institutional landlords even collect application fees after they've found a renter for an available home. Brian Johnson: The focus of the President's initiative has been on applying political pressure to companies to induce them to change their fee disclosure practices. In the process, the White House and supporting agencies have dismissed broad categories of fees as junk without ever providing any consistent definition of the term, which has created uncertainty as to which fees can be assessed by institutions without undue reputational or regulatory risk. Brian Johnson: The CFPB has been the most enthusiastic among regulators in heeding the President's call, indiscriminately attacking a growing list of common financial service fees, no matter that they are lawful and fully disclosed. Brian Johnson: The agency has publicly hectored companies about deposit account fees and used the implied threat of investigation to induce such companies to abandon these legal fees. Further, in addressing other fees, the CFPB appears appears to have violated its own regulations and laws governing how agencies proffer rules by disguising interpretive rules as policy statements in bulletins and issuing circulars that function as legislative rules. In another instance, under the guise of interpretation, the CFPB read a word into a statute to achieve its desired policy outcome. In still another, the agency treats the rulemaking process as a foregone conclusion, acting as though a still proposed rule has already taken effect, signaling that the agency has no interest in considering public comments, establishing an adequate evidentiary basis to support its conclusions, or considering potential changes to improve the rule. These examples demonstrate an abuse of power and the agency's disregard for process and the limits placed on it. Moreover, the CFPB's behavior subverts the authority of Congress to oversee the agency and legislate the legality of fees in our financial marketplace. Simply put, it's not playing by the rules. Lindsey Siegel: So I think the federal government does have a role to play. The CFPB could create best practices, investigate junk fees further -- especially those being charged for tenant screening reports -- could bring enforcement actions against debt collectors that engage in collection practices that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in their collection of rental debt especially includes collection of junk fees. And certainly, you know, HUD could further study and address the disproportionate impact of these practices on renters and rental applicants of color. Lindsey Siegel: Tenants living in Atlanta have a very hard time finding a rental, finding a home, that's not owned by a corporate landlord at this point. They have bought up many properties in the Atlanta area and they always seem to be working in lockstep so that once one institutional landlord is charging a certain kind of fee then another one tends to charge it as well. Just one example of this is the proliferation of landlords charging for insurance fees, and often tenants will think that these are renters insurance because they're often called renter's insurance. But it's not like traditional renter's insurance that protects the renter and their property if it's destroyed. What it does is protect the landlord and doesn't really provide a benefit to tenants at all. And we've seen that proliferate with investor landlords in particular. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): I can't imagine any reasonable member of Congress not saying, "I want the person to know what their financial obligation is when they sign an instrument, not after they read page 10 in the fine print." Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): I'm less caught up in whether or not a trash collection fee is appropriate or not, and more caught up in, does that renter know at the point in time they're signing a lease what they're expected to pay every month? Michelle Henry: We often see things bleed over state lines and boundaries, as you are well aware, and so it's important that we work together to enforce these matters. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA): How often do these kinds of cases cross state lines? And would having federal standards against these types of hidden fees make these cases easier to bring? Michelle Henry: Almost always. And I think that's critical. Where we have been most successful is joining with our fellow states, other attorneys general, partnering with them, and including the CFPB. In December of 2020, the CFPB, with all 50 states and the District of Columbia, filed enforcement action against Nationstar mortgage, again for deceptive practices, for not being transparent when they were servicing borrowers mortgages, and as a result of that joint effort we were able to obtain a settlement of $73 million and brought aid to 40,000 borrowers. Michelle Henry: You know, the reality is a lot of times consumers get misled. So they start, they're looking on the internet, they're trying to do due diligence and look for the best price, whether it's for a hotel, a vacation, and they're in there examining it, and they get led to a certain area of a certain website thinking that's the best price. And they go down this rabbit hole where they have no idea at the end of it that the price they thought they were going to pay for a hotel stay with their family is actually far larger because of fees that they weren't prepared, were not properly advised of, and at that point, they're so far in or they never discover it. So no, I don't think they understand exactly what to be aware of. We're trying to do our best to educate but far more work needs to be done, and I applaud this committee for working on it. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA): If more federal agencies had the authority to address these hidden fees, how would that affect your office's capacity? Michelle Henry: It would help tremendously. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA): Thank you so very much. Michelle Henry: If history is any lesson, we know that they can't be trusted to act in the best interest of consumers on their own. Look, they're in the business of making money for their shareholders and we need robust consumer protection rules and enforcement to ensure that. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): So what we're talking about here is not the "what," it's the "how." And I for one do not think that the regulator's who have demonstrated pushing the boundaries of their authority, giving them more authority is a good idea if we're coming up with a real bipartisan sustainable solution. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): The problem we have here too, when we transfer power out of Congress to another branch, yes, that changes every four years or so. So you may be thrilled with a regulatory regimen that comes out from the CFBP today, but because of the way they behaved, it'd be one of the first things I would work to repeal if the administration changed and withdraw it. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): I'd like to submit for the record a letter from the Consumer Bankers Association on the subject. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): Mr. Johnson, can you talk about the effect of the method that the CFPB is using to go after this and the impact that it can have, the negative implications that has? Is the CFPB's tendency to name and shame business institutions to avoid certain practices or adopt new ones effective regulation? They're not really thinking through the full impact and all the potential unintended consequences. Can you think of any example under this current leadership of the CFPB where they have taken that into consideration? Can you speak a little bit about the efforts and the length the CFPB goes in an effort to avoid judicial review and skirt the APA process? June 8, 2023 Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security Witnesses: Chief Executive Officer, National Consumers League Bruce Greenwald Professor of Business, Marketing Division, Columbia Business School George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia School of Law, George Mason University Clips 21:35 Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO): Simply put, these are fees that are disclosed to a consumer midway through or at the end of a transaction, or they're fees that serve no tangible purpose for a consumer, like a processing fee, and that they are mandatory or unavoidable. 28:00 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): The way I look at this issue, and the way many Tennesseans look at it, is this is another way for the FTC, the CFPB, DoT, and all these regulators to clamp down on businesses and try to micro manage businesses. 30:42 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: as a strategy where firms decide to divide a product's price into two or more mandatory parts, a base price for the main product and one or more mandatory surcharges, rather than charging a single all-inclusive price. For example, many hotels have a mandatory fee on top of the daily room rate. These are sometimes called resort fees, or facility fees, or destination fees and can range from $20 to over $50 a night. And many rental car agencies assess several mandatory fees on top of the daily rental rate, such as concession recovery fees, customer facility fees, energy recovery fees, and vehicle licensing fees. 31:20 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: In general, what research on partition pricing has shown is that when firms separate out mandatory surcharges consumers tend to underestimate the total price they'll have to pay and they're often more likely to complete the purchase. 31:50 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: With drip pricing, firms advertise only part of our products' price upfront and reveal other charges later, as shoppers go through the buying process. Drip fees can be mandatory or can be for optional items, but for today's testimony I'll focus on the dripping of mandatory surcharges. Drip pricing is commonly used in industries like the cable TV and the ticketing industries. When a consumer shops for a TV-Internet bundle from a cable television provider, they may first see an attractive base price offer for the bundle, but later learn there are also broadcast TV fees, set top box fees, regional sports fees, and TV connection fees that raise the price considerably. And a consumer shopping for a ticket for a live event, like a concert, a play, or a baseball game, typically first sees the price for different seats in the venue. After selecting a seat, as the consumer clicks through more webpages, they may come to learn there's also a mandatory booking fee, ticketing fee, venue fee, and delivery fee, even when the tickets are delivered electronically. Eventually, they see a total price that may be much higher than the first price they saw and they may be under time pressure to complete the purchase, as there might be a countdown clock that indicates they have to complete their purchase in just a few minutes. Or they may be told there's only two seats left at that price. 33:00 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: What research has shown is that when surcharges are dripped, consumers end up being more likely to buy a product that appears cheaper upfront based only on the base price, but that's more expensive and total given the drip fees. Consumers also tend to buy more expensive products than they otherwise would, such as a seat closer to the stage for a live event. 35:00 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: These policies will benefit consumers if they require that upfront stated prices must be all-inclusive. In other words, all mandatory fees must be included in the total price and that the total price should be seen upfront. This is what academic research suggests will be most beneficial to consumers. 39:20 Dr. Todd Zywicki: Everybody knows bags fly free on Southwest, everybody knows bags don't fly free on the legacy airlines, everybody knows there's going to be a fee for for bags on the other airlines and the like. Maybe there's ways you can disclose it, but nobody's fooled at this point. 42:45 Sally Greenberg: If consumers hate junk fees so much, why do companies large and small increasingly impose them? The answer is, unsurprisingly, because they are a substantial profit center. 43:20 Sally Greenberg: Late payment fees charged by banks and credit cards cost American families an estimated $12 billion annually. These fees, which can be as much as $41 for each Late Fee Payment, far exceed the cost to the issuer for processing and do little to deter future delinquent payments. 43:40 Sally Greenberg: Airlines are also poster children for junk fees. Globally, revenue from junk fees, ancillary fees in airline speak, brought in $102.8 billion in 2022. To put this in perspective, junk fees last year made up 15% of global airline revenues, compared to 6% only 10 years ago. 44:00 Sally Greenberg: Anyone who buys tickets to a concert or sporting event is well acquainted with the myriad fees. They're added at the end of the ticket buying process. We have the example that you showed, Senator Hickenlooper. Primary and secondary market ticketing companies charge service fees, order processing fees, delivery fees and other charges that increased ticket prices on average 27% for the primary market and 31% for the secondary market. 45:05 Sally Greenberg: Junk fees themselves are anti-competitive. They make comparing prices more difficult, distorting well functioning marketplaces. Honest entrepreneurs who invest in their businesses, innovate, and strive to create better value for their customers lose business. Action to address the consumer and competitive harm created by junk fees is urgently needed. 45:30 Sally Greenberg: First, we would urge you to support S. 916. It's the Junk Fee Prevention Act, which would require some of the worst abusers of junk fees to display the full price of services upfront, and they would bar excessive fees and ensure transparency. Second, we ask that Congress restore the FTC's ability to obtain strong financial penalties from wrongdoers. The Supreme Court, in 2021, overturned AMG Capital Management v. FTC, wiping out a critical enforcement tool for the commission. S. 4145, which is the Consumer Protection Remedies Act, would restore that ability to impose monetary relief to the commission. And finally, Congress must not allow businesses that trap consumers with unfair and deceptive fees to escape accountability through fine print in their contracts. To that end, we're proud to support S. 1376, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, which would prohibit pre-dispute arbitration agreements from being enforceable if they require arbitration in employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights disputes 44:35 Sally Greenberg: Renters, for example, tend to have lower incomes than those who own their homes. These consumers are also some of the most preyed upon by abusive junk fees. A 2022 survey conducted by Consumer and Housing Advocates found that 89% of landlords imposed some rental application fees[[ clare, 8/7/2023 2:09 PM couldn't find this specific survey]], nearly as many renters paid excessive late fees and they also get hit with utility, administrative, convenience, insurance, and notice fees. 51:30 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): I'm not hearing from Tennesseans about junk fees. They're just not talking about. They are talking about real economic harm. And I think for some it's been kind of perplexing that we would focus on this issue. I even had one Tennessean say, "Well, what exactly is a junk fee? And what are the economic harms that come to people for fees for discretionary services?" 53:20 Dr. Todd Zywicki: I can't see any reason why people who pay their credit cards on time should have to subsidize people who pay their credit cards late. The evidence is clear on this from the that if you reduce late fees, more people pay late. The makes clear that if you reduce late fees, everybody ends up paying higher interest rates and, and lower income and higher risk borrowers get less access to credit. So most of what we see in the market is efficient. It prevents cross consumer subsidies and a lot of these things that are labeled as junk fees are actually just efficient multi-part pricing. 1:00:30 Dr. Vicki Morwitz: When a larger firm, or really any firm, uses hidden fees or surcharges, it doesn't only hurt consumers, but it hurts well intentioned, honest competitors like many of our country's small businesses that you're talking about. So when a larger firm makes salient a lower base price and only puts in small print or only reveals at the end of the shopping process that there are additional mandatory fees, their product offerings may appear, at least at first, to be cheaper than those of say a small business, an honest competitor who uses all inclusive prices, whose prices at least at first then, will appear more expensive, even if they're actually cheaper in total when the hidden fees of the large firm are added in. Now, research shows this is going to lead consumers to be more likely to even first consider the products and services of the larger firm who uses hidden surcharges because their products seem cheaper. In other words, their supposed low prices draw consumers in. But then having first consider their products consumers will also be more likely to stick with that firm and ultimately purchase their products, even when they're more expensive in total with the fees. So these hidden fees, they don't only hurt consumers by leading them to make purchases that are against their own self interest, but it also hurts honest competitors who are using transparent pricing practices. 1:04:10 Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): One area of this high excessive fees is ticketing. We had the hearing earlier this year with the president of Live Nation/ Ticketmaster, and other witnesses and as you are aware, the facts are quite startling. It's being reviewed by the Justice Department, including 90% monopoly on ticketing for major NFL, NHL events, 80% for major arena events, and 70% monopoly when it comes to all ticketing. In addition to that, Ticketmaster now owns a number of venues and also locks in a number of other venues that they don't own with their services for in excess of seven years, which is a subject of a bill that Senator Blumenthal and I have introduced, because this locking in makes for even less competition. And then finally, Live Nation promotes the act. So it's like a three cornered monopoly. 1:12:30 Sally Greenberg: Yes, you may know that you have a baggage fee, but there are many people who are older, who have disabilities, who may have children with them; they cannot be carrying their bags onto the airplane. So they are forced to eat the cost of a $35 fee, something that used to be free before, and has jammed our airplanes full of luggage up top, creating hazards for flight attendants as well. 1:13:55 Sally Greenberg: We certainly support the Good Jobs for Airports Act. I think many consumers had no idea that a lot of these workers were not making minimum wage[[ clare, 8/7/2023 2:08 PM couldn't find a source for this.]], were relying on tips. And many people who use the wheelchairs and the curbside baggage services did not know that people were living on tip wages and many people don't tip, as some of us who've been tipped workers know. Tipping is very up and down and certainly not a reliable source of income. So yes, we very much appreciate that legislation and it's long overdue. 1:21:20 Dr. Todd Zywicki: Junk fees is a meaningless term, but it's worse than meaningless. It's actually pernicious, which is that by sort of using this blanket conclusory label, it obscures the complexity of this, the difference between trip pricing, risk based pricing, multipart pricing, partition pricing, and that sort of thing, and it kind of sweeps into one bucket things that are legitimate, things that are aren't, things that might be partially legitimate. And now it's even got more confusing because if you look at the FTC rule, for example, on auto dealers, they take things like nitrogen filled tires, they charge more money for a claim that's a junk fee. The problem with that is not that it's a separate price for nitrogen filled tires. The problem, if there's a problem, is that nitrogen filled tires are garbage, right? There's nothing there. It doesn't matter whether it's disclosed separately or bundled in the price if it's a worthless product. And so when we talk about junk fees, we can end up confusing ourselves, lumping in things because we want to just apply this label to it, whereas I think it'd be much better to understand risk based pricing. What are things where they're pricing for something that you get no value from? What are the things where they're pricing things simply to extract wealth from consumers and the like? Executive Producer Recommended Sources Music by Editing Production Assistance

The Insular Cases are SCOTUS cases regarding rights of people in U.S. territories. They're considered U.S. citizens from birth, but they don't have the same constitutional rights or representation as citizens who live in one of the 50 states. Research: Armstrong v. United States, 182 U.S. 243 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/243/ Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Sanford Ballard Dole". Encyclopedia Britannica, 5 Jun. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sanford-Ballard-Dole. Accessed 31 July 2023. Carstensen, Vernon. “The Constitutional and Territorial Expansion.” https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND88053401/pdf DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/1/ Dooley v. United States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/222/ Dooley v. United States, 183 U.S. 151 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/183/151/ Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/244/ Erman, Sam. “Meanings of Citizenship in the U.S. Empire: Puerto Rico, Isabel Gonzalez, and the Supreme Court, 1898 to 1905.” Journal of American Ethnic History Summer 2008 Volume 27, Number 4. Fiol-Matta, Lía. “Future of the Insular Cases.” Latino Justice. https://www.latinojustice.org/en/latinojusticeopina/future-insular-cases Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States, 183 U.S. 176 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/183/176/ Gelpí, Gustavo A. “The Insular Cases: A Comparative Historical Study of Puerto Rico, Hawai‘i, and the Philippines.” The Federal Lawyer | March/April 2011. Gershon, Livia. “The Myth of Manifest Destiny.” JSTOR Daily. 5/5/2021. https://daily.jstor.org/the-myth-of-manifest-destiny/ Goetze v. United States, 182 U.S. 221 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/221/ Howe, Amy. “Court declines to take up petition seeking to overturn Insular Cases.” SCOTUS Blog. 10/17/2022. https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/court-declines-to-take-up-petition-seeking-to-overturn-insular-cases/ Huus v. New York & Porto Rico Steamship Co., 182 U.S. 392 (1901). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/182/392/ National Archives. “Louisiana Purchase Treaty (1803).” https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/louisiana-purchase-treaty#no-1 Perez, Lisa Maria. “Citizenship Denied: The ‘Insular Cases' and the Fourteenth Amendment.” Virginia Law Review , Jun., 2008, Vol. 94, No. 4 (Jun., 2008). https://www.jstor.org/stable/25470577 Ponsa-Kraus, Christina. “The Insular Cases Run Amok: Against Constitutional Exceptionalism in the Territories.” Yale Law Journal. Vol. 131, No. 8. June 2022. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-insular-cases-run-amok Sparrow, Bartholomew H. "Insular Cases." Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States, edited by David S. Tanenhaus, vol. 2, Macmillan Reference USA, 2008, pp. 476-481. Gale In Context: U.S. History, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3241200487/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=91c70605. Accessed 25 July 2023. Supreme Court of the United States. “UNITED STATES v. VAELLO MADERO.” Argued November 9, 2021—Decided April 21, 2022. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf Topol, Sarah A., and Glenna Gordon. "The America That Americans Forget." The New York Times Magazine, 9 July 2023, p. 22(L). Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A756508304/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=9e9434c8. Accessed 25 July 2023. Torruella, Juan R. “Ruling America's Colonies: The Insular Cases” Yale Law & Policy Review. 32:57. 2013. Torruella, Juan R. “The Insular Cases: The Establishment of a Regime of Political Apartheid.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law. Winter 2007. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jil/vol29/iss2/1/ S. Department of the Interior Office of Insular Affairs. “Definitions of Insular Area Political Organizations.” https://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/politicatypes S. State Department Office of the Historian. “Louisiana Purchase, 1803 .” https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/louisiana-purchase. Wallach, Sherry Levin. “The Insular Cases Must Be Overturned.” Bloomberg Law. 8/3/2022. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/the-insular-cases-must-be-overturned Yale Law School. “Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848.” https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/guadhida.asp See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, a panel of libertarian and conservative scholars—J. Joel Alicea of the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute, and Sherif Girgis of Notre Dame Law School—explore the different strands of originalism as a constitutional methodology. They also explore the Roberts Court's application of originalism in recent cases, and how originalism intersects with textualism and other interpretive approaches. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was originally streamed live on June 28, 2023.    Additional Resources  Moore v. Harper (2023)  New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2023)  Grutter v. Bollinger (2002)  District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)  Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)  Counterman v. Colorado (2023)   J. Joel Alicea, “The Moral Authority of Original Meaning,” Notre Dame Law Review (2022)   Joel Alicea, “Originalism and the Rule of the Dead,” National Affairs (2022)  Sherif Girgis,  “Living Traditionalism,” N.Y.U. L.Rev (2023)  Sherif Gergis, “Dobb's History and the future of Abortion Laws,” SCOTUSblog (2022)  Anastasia Boden, “Supreme Court's Sidestep Leaves Native Kids Without Answers,” Volokh Conspiracy (June 2023)  Anastasia Boden, “Discourse: Irrational Basis,” Pacific Legal Foundation, (August 2022)    Stay Connected and Learn More  Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. 

Charges of politicization are nothing new. But what goes into keeping Supreme Court reporting fair at a time when the justices themselves are making headlines over issues of ethics? Writer Henry Gass and his editor, Yvonne Zipp, join guest host Gail Chaddock for a look at covering the sometimes surprising session that just ended – staying glued to SCOTUSblog and reporting smart stories ahead of decisions from the places where the human impact of those rulings is most acutely felt.

Charges of politicization are nothing new. But what goes into keeping Supreme Court reporting fair at a time when the justices themselves are making headlines over issues of ethics? Writer Henry Gass and his editor, Yvonne Zipp, join guest host Gail Chaddock for a look at covering the sometimes surprising session that just ended – staying glued to SCOTUSblog and reporting smart stories ahead of decisions from the places where the human impact of those rulings is most acutely felt.

Just over a year ago, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, limited the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions, and kicked gun issues back to the state level, overruling years of precedent and going against public opinion. Roy Wood Jr. sits down with Daily Show supervising producer and writer Zhubin Parang, ACLU legal director, David Cole and editor of SCOTUSBlog, James Romoser to discuss what Americans can expect going forward, how justices could be held accountable for their rulings, and what it would take to course-correct and see a judiciary that is more closely aligned with public opinion.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here's what we're talking about today: SCOTUS Ends Affirmative Action-via SCOTUS Blog, Oyez, & SlateOther Supreme Court Rulings-via PoliticoParkland Cop Acquitted-via AP NewsParisian Riots-via CNNA full transcript (with links) is available at kimmoffat.com/hwh-transcriptsAs always, you can find me on Instagram/Twitter @kimmoffat and TikTok @kimmoffatishere

On June 8th - in the midst of the Trump indictment - the Super Supremes decided an important issue dealing with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In Allen V. Milligan, the Court affirmed a district court's determination that Alabama's congressional map likely violates section 2. The majority opinion came as a surprise to many because it was authored by Chief Justices Roberts, who has a track record of being hostile to the VRA. Professor Carolyn Shapiro of the Chicago-Kent College of Law joined me to discussed the opinion. Professor Shapiro is the founder and co-director of Chicago-Kent's Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States (ISCOTUS). She has appeared on MSNBC, NPR, and C-SPAN, and her commentary has been featured in the Washington Post, The Hill, CNN, and SCOTUSblog, Professor Shapiro co-authored an amicus brief in Milligan on behalf of members of the Congressional Black Caucus.Enjoy the discussion.****Check out the Florida Bar's new mentoring program: Counsel to Counsel. It is designed to pair junior lawyers with lawyers who have 5 or more years' experience. Registration is open for mentors and mentees.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues.Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com.Summarily is supported by The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast's advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast's creator is prohibited.

Here's what we're talking about today: Recent Supreme Court Rulings-via NY Times, Washington Post, SCOTUS Blog, & OyezA full transcript (with links) is available at kimmoffat.com/hwh-transcriptsAs always, you can find me on Instagram/Twitter @kimmoffat and TikTok @kimmoffatishere

The Treasury Department announced today that the U.S. could default on its debt as early as June 1. For the past few months, House Republicans have used the debt limit as a bargaining chip to secure spending cuts. As the new deadline looms over us, we are wondering: Is there a way out? And, an unassuming Supreme Court case could change how a slew of laws are interpreted. Plus, video-chatting parrots make us smile. Here’s everything we talked about today: “The Luring Test: AI and the engineering of consumer trust” from the Federal Trade Commission “Supreme Court will consider major case on power of federal regulatory agencies” from SCOTUSblog “U.S. must raise debt limit by as early as June 1 to avoid default, Treasury says” from The Washington Post “The U.S. could hit the debt ceiling by June 1, much sooner than expected, Yellen warns” from NBC “Trump to appear at CNN town hall in New Hampshire” from CNN “NASA’s Perseverance rover loses its hitchhiking ‘pet rock’ after more than a year together on Mars” from Live Science “Scientists Taught Pet Parrots to Video Call Each Other—and the Birds Loved It” from Smithsonian magazine Have a comment or question about something we talked about? Send it our way! Leave us a voice message at 508-U-B-SMART or write to makemesmart@marketplace.org.

The Treasury Department announced today that the U.S. could default on its debt as early as June 1. For the past few months, House Republicans have used the debt limit as a bargaining chip to secure spending cuts. As the new deadline looms over us, we are wondering: Is there a way out? And, an unassuming Supreme Court case could change how a slew of laws are interpreted. Plus, video-chatting parrots make us smile. Here’s everything we talked about today: “The Luring Test: AI and the engineering of consumer trust” from the Federal Trade Commission “Supreme Court will consider major case on power of federal regulatory agencies” from SCOTUSblog “U.S. must raise debt limit by as early as June 1 to avoid default, Treasury says” from The Washington Post “The U.S. could hit the debt ceiling by June 1, much sooner than expected, Yellen warns” from NBC “Trump to appear at CNN town hall in New Hampshire” from CNN “NASA’s Perseverance rover loses its hitchhiking ‘pet rock’ after more than a year together on Mars” from Live Science “Scientists Taught Pet Parrots to Video Call Each Other—and the Birds Loved It” from Smithsonian magazine Have a comment or question about something we talked about? Send it our way! Leave us a voice message at 508-U-B-SMART or write to makemesmart@marketplace.org.

The Supreme Court's mifepristone order. On Friday night, the Supreme Court granted a request from the Biden administration and a drug manufacturer to put a Texas judge's ruling on hold that would have suspended the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone, SCOTUSblog reported. We covered Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's ruling in a previous edition of Tangle. You can read today's podcast here, today's “Under the Radar” story here, and today's “Have a nice day” story here. You can also check out our latest YouTube video here. Today's clickables: Quick hits (1:33), Today's story (3:29), Left's take (5:54), Right's take (9:30), Isaac's take (12:54), Listener question (15:49), Under the Radar (18:28), Numbers (19:25), Have a nice day (20:08) You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.  Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/support

It was barely half past two when Trace stepped into my office, casefiles in hand. The first one gave me a good chuckle. Apparently Elon had removed “legacy verification” from Twitter — meaning the only way to get a blue check now was to give him eight smackeroos a month. Everyone from Jason Alexander to SCOTUS Blog was threatening to bounce, someone had impersonated the Big Apple itself, and Elon had footed the bill for LeBron James, Stephen King, and — her?! No way.I gazed at the smoke detector above me, two rectangular holes where its batteries should be, and flipped to File #2. A writer for The Atlantic named Ed Yong had crossed the line from “journalist” to “activist”, going after everyone questioning the narrative on “long COVID”. Something about the evidence he used smelled fishy as hell. I put it to the side — this was one for Jesse to handle.The last file was something else entirely. I took a drag of my cigarette, watching the smoke curl lazily towards the ceiling as I kept reading. An old grandma gets raided by the DEA for traffickin' human growth hormone. No charges. Turns out what she was pushin'…wasn't exactly intended for human consumption. Then the FDA busts a lady importing “beauty products” from Hong Kong. Confiscate her cars, her mansions. A spreadsheet she kept shows she moved a whopping $10 million worth of product.“You think they're connected?”“A listener tipped us off. Said her cat needed meds, but they're illegal. The dame says her vet pointed her towards a Facebook group that could hook her up under the table. I think they're the missing link. Real secretive, though. Won't talk to anyone who's not a buyer, so I sent them an invite, pretending to be —"Suddenly, the phone rang. A booming voice on the other end spoke. “Your invitation to join FIP Warriors® 5.0 has been accepted.”I stood up and brushed the flakes of weed off my trenchcoat as Trace unholstered his trusty snubnose revolver and adjusted his fedora.“Start the car, Trace. Looks like we're going undercover.”Blue ChecksThe results of the legacy checkmark removalhttps://twitter.com/goldengateblond/status/1649162600826167296https://twitter.com/thatfrood/status/1649179696226000897?s=20https://twitter.com/realrickpaulas/status/1649136628915380226?s=20Musk buys Twitter Blue for Stephen Kinghttps://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1649147510525423626Long COVIDEd Yong's article on Long COVIDhttps://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2023/04/long-covid-symptoms-invisible-disability-chronic-illness/673773/The CDC on Long COVIDhttps://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/index.htmlEvidence is mixed as to whether vaccines reduce the chances or severity of long COVIDhttps://www.kff.org/policy-watch/long-covid-what-do-latest-data-show/Household Pulse survey on Long COVIDhttps://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/pulse/long-covid.htmFederal Reserve report on Long COVIDhttps://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/long-covid-cognitive-impairment-and-the-stalled-decline-in-disability-rates-20220805.htmlSurvey about discrimination against those with long COVIDhttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0277317Jesse's response to the articleThe New Republic: We Might Have Long Covid All Wronghttps://newrepublic.com/article/168965/might-long-covid-wrongStuart Ritchie: Does Long Covid really exist?https://unherd.com/2021/06/does-long-covid-really-exist/Ed Yong's first article on Long COVIDhttps://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/covid-19-coronavirus-longterm-symptoms-months/612679/The Kitty CartelThe Atlantic's 2020 piece on black-market cat remdesivirhttps://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/05/remdesivir-cats/611341/Business Insider's articlehttps://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-treatment-cats-fip-sold-10k-black-market-2020-6?r=US&IR=TRobin says she doesn't get kickbackshttps://www.reddit.com/r/cureFIP/comments/11qv50c/proof_that_robin_has_previously_claimed_they_dont/OneZero: Inside a Facebook ‘Dallas Buyers Club' for Cat Drugshttps://onezero.medium.com/desperate-cat-owners-are-buying-illegal-cat-drugs-on-facebooks-black-market-cd40bfe90997Cure FIP exposes FIP Warriorshttps://www.curefip.com/post/drama-fip-telenovelasFIP Warriorshttps://www.facebook.com/groups/804374446995270FIP Global Catshttps://www.facebook.com/groups/595916822107282Zen By Cathttps://www.zenbycat.org/ This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.blockedandreported.org/subscribe

Tom Goldstein is retiring from his U.S. Supreme Court practice after 25 years and more than 40 arguments — but perhaps bigger than his legal imprint is how his unusual methods changed the Supreme Court bar forever. On this week's episode of The Term, we talk with Tom about the criticism he faced early in his career as an advocate, why he started the invaluable SCOTUSblog and what he has planned next for shaking up the legal industry.

The national COVID-19 public health emergency will be ending in May, but that doesn’t mean the pandemic is over. Hundreds of people are still dying from COVID in the U.S. every day and many more are getting sick. So then why is the emergency ending? On the show today: Dr. Céline Gounder, an epidemiologist and editor at large for public health at Kaiser Health News, walks us through the state of the pandemic right now, what will change when the public health emergency expires and what it could mean for the American health care system as a whole. In the News Fix, we’ll tell you about a case before the Supreme Court that may drastically change how the internet works. Also, Russia temporarily pulled out of a major nuclear arms treaty. We'll get into what that means for the future of international arms control. Later, one listener shares a perspective on pay transparency, and another tells us why we should discuss menopause more. Plus, this week a chatbot answers the Make Me Smart question. Here’s everything we talked about today: What happens to COVID vaccines and drugs after the health emergency? from The Los Angeles Times “Millions of people are about to get kicked off Medicaid” from Vox “WHO says Covid-19 remains a global health emergency, but pandemic is at a ‘transition point'” from CNN “The End of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: Details on Health Coverage and Access” from KFF An Etiquette Guide for Long COVID from The Atlantic “Need time off work for period pain? These countries offer ‘menstrual leave.'” from The Washington Post “Justices will consider whether tech giants can be sued for allegedly aiding ISIS terrorism” from SCOTUSblog “Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count” from The New York Times “Putin's Move on Nuclear Treaty May Signal End to Formal Arms Control” from The New York Times What's something you've been wrong about lately? We want to hear your answer to the Make Me Smart question! Leave us a voice message at 508-U-B-SMART, and your submission may be featured in a future episode.

The national COVID-19 public health emergency will be ending in May, but that doesn’t mean the pandemic is over. Hundreds of people are still dying from COVID in the U.S. every day and many more are getting sick. So then why is the emergency ending? On the show today: Dr. Céline Gounder, an epidemiologist and editor at large for public health at Kaiser Health News, walks us through the state of the pandemic right now, what will change when the public health emergency expires and what it could mean for the American health care system as a whole. In the News Fix, we’ll tell you about a case before the Supreme Court that may drastically change how the internet works. Also, Russia temporarily pulled out of a major nuclear arms treaty. We'll get into what that means for the future of international arms control. Later, one listener shares a perspective on pay transparency, and another tells us why we should discuss menopause more. Plus, this week a chatbot answers the Make Me Smart question. Here’s everything we talked about today: What happens to COVID vaccines and drugs after the health emergency? from The Los Angeles Times “Millions of people are about to get kicked off Medicaid” from Vox “WHO says Covid-19 remains a global health emergency, but pandemic is at a ‘transition point'” from CNN “The End of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency: Details on Health Coverage and Access” from KFF An Etiquette Guide for Long COVID from The Atlantic “Need time off work for period pain? These countries offer ‘menstrual leave.'” from The Washington Post “Justices will consider whether tech giants can be sued for allegedly aiding ISIS terrorism” from SCOTUSblog “Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count” from The New York Times “Putin's Move on Nuclear Treaty May Signal End to Formal Arms Control” from The New York Times What's something you've been wrong about lately? We want to hear your answer to the Make Me Smart question! Leave us a voice message at 508-U-B-SMART, and your submission may be featured in a future episode.

Last term, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, limited the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions, and kicked gun issues back to the state level, overruling years of precedent and going against public opinion. Roy Wood Jr. sits down with Daily Show supervising producer and writer Zhubin Parang, ACLU legal director, David Cole and editor of SCOTUSBlog, James Romoser to discuss what Americans can expect from this new term, how justices could be held accountable for their rulings, and what it would take to course-correct and see a judiciary that is more closely aligned with public opinion. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today we're talking about that thing we all sort of dread paying: insurance. It’s a big business and a critical part of the housing market and our economy. But in the era of climate change, this multitrillion-dollar industry is being disrupted in a major way. There’s data that shows insured losses from extreme weather disasters will exceed $100 billion for the second year in a row. And in one state in particular, the situation is, well, messy. On the show, Marketplace’s Amy Scott walks us through Florida’s complicated insurance marketplace and explains what’s at stake if the insurance industry doesn’t prepare for our changing climate. In the News Fix, there are signs the U.S. economy is dis-inflating. Kai talks about what this might mean for interest rates. Meanwhile, Kimberly highlights a blockbuster case before the Supreme Court that could have major implications for the 2024 election and beyond. Later, we’ll hear from a listener who picked up ice skating, and a writer explains what she got wrong about the mantra “It’s better to give than to receive.” Here’s everything we talked about today: Check out episode 5 and episode 6 of the “How We Survive” podcast on Florida’s broken insurance market “Insurance needs insurance too: reinsurance and cat bonds explained” from APM Research Lab “Insured losses from disasters will exceed $100B for second year in a row, led by Hurricane Ian, new data shows” from CBS Miami “In high-stakes election case, justices will decide validity of ‘independent state legislature’ theory” from SCOTUSblog “Club Q alleged shooter charged with murder, hate crimes in second court appearance” from Colorado Public Radio “The Best Santa Hats for Christmas” from Wirecutter As 2022 winds down, so are we! Join us Friday for our final episode of the year. We’re hosting a special holiday-inspired Economics on Tap starting at 6:30 p.m. ET / 3:30 p.m. PT on YouTube livestream. And if you have a holiday cocktail recipe for Kimberly, please send it our way. We’re at makemesmart@marketplace.org or 508-U-B-SMART!

Today we're talking about that thing we all sort of dread paying: insurance. It’s a big business and a critical part of the housing market and our economy. But in the era of climate change, this multitrillion-dollar industry is being disrupted in a major way. There’s data that shows insured losses from extreme weather disasters will exceed $100 billion for the second year in a row. And in one state in particular, the situation is, well, messy. On the show, Marketplace’s Amy Scott walks us through Florida’s complicated insurance marketplace and explains what’s at stake if the insurance industry doesn’t prepare for our changing climate. In the News Fix, there are signs the U.S. economy is dis-inflating. Kai talks about what this might mean for interest rates. Meanwhile, Kimberly highlights a blockbuster case before the Supreme Court that could have major implications for the 2024 election and beyond. Later, we’ll hear from a listener who picked up ice skating, and a writer explains what she got wrong about the mantra “It’s better to give than to receive.” Here’s everything we talked about today: Check out episode 5 and episode 6 of the “How We Survive” podcast on Florida’s broken insurance market “Insurance needs insurance too: reinsurance and cat bonds explained” from APM Research Lab “Insured losses from disasters will exceed $100B for second year in a row, led by Hurricane Ian, new data shows” from CBS Miami “In high-stakes election case, justices will decide validity of ‘independent state legislature’ theory” from SCOTUSblog “Club Q alleged shooter charged with murder, hate crimes in second court appearance” from Colorado Public Radio “The Best Santa Hats for Christmas” from Wirecutter As 2022 winds down, so are we! Join us Friday for our final episode of the year. We’re hosting a special holiday-inspired Economics on Tap starting at 6:30 p.m. ET / 3:30 p.m. PT on YouTube livestream. And if you have a holiday cocktail recipe for Kimberly, please send it our way. We’re at makemesmart@marketplace.org or 508-U-B-SMART!

A wave of decisions by the Supreme Court's conservative majority has lead to criticism that the court is more politicized than it used to be. Now there's data to support that claim. Researchers with The Supreme Court Database — which is run by legal scholars from multiple universities — have shown that the court produced more conservative decisions this term than at any time since 1931.NPR's Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg joined Jamal Greene, a Constitutional law professor from Columbia University, and Tom Goldstein, the founder of SCOTUSBlog, to talk about the implications of the decisions from the term.

David and Sarah begin by going through SCOTUSblog's end-of-term Stat Pack. Then Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel for First Liberty Institute, joins for a deep dive into the Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Supreme Court case. Hiram, who was co-counsel on the case, explains the story and talks about Coach Joseph Kennedy from a more personal point of view. How did the facts become so muddled throughout the process? Our hosts have a lively debate about how the case could have—or should have—been handled. Show Notes:-SCOTUSblog Stat Pack-Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist.

Heather and Joanne react to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. How did we get here? What does the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs signal for the future of women's reproductive rights and broader civil rights in America? What kind of unique perspective do women historians bring to understanding this moment? Join CAFE Insider to listen to “Backstage,” where Heather and Joanne chat each week about the anecdotes and ideas that formed the episode. Head to: cafe.com/history For more historical analysis of current events, sign up for the free weekly CAFE Brief newsletter, featuring Time Machine, a weekly article that dives into an historical event inspired by each episode of Now & Then: cafe.com/brief Executive Producer: Tamara Sepper; Editorial Producer: David Kurlander; Audio Producer: Matthew Billy; Theme Music: Nat Weiner; CAFE Team: Adam Waller, David Tatasciore, Sam Ozer-Staton, Noa Azulai, and Jake Kaplan. Now & Then is presented by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. REFERENCES & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS “Now & Then: Abortion: Whose Choice?” CAFE.com, 9/14/2021   “The Dobbs v. Jackson Decision, Annotated,” New York Times, 6/24/2022 Justice Benjamin Robert Curtis, “Dissenting Opinion, Dred Scott v. Sanford,” Rutgers, 1857 Amy Howe, “In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law,” SCOTUSBlog, 6/23/2022 “Anson Burlingame,” HarpWeek, 1998 Frida Ghitis, “Opinion: These two women reminded America why Tr… must be prosecuted,” CNN, 6/23/2022 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This Monday, we talk about the racist mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, over the weekend. It’s devastated the town’s predominantly Black community in multiple ways, including its central food supply. As the nation processes the tragedy, it’s critical to call it what is: a white supremacist act. We also discuss the baby formula shortage and the consequences of a Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance laws. Here’s everything we talked about today: Baby formula production is still several weeks out from Heather Long on Twitter One key chart on the baby formula shortage from Emily Peck on Twitter Third round of free COVID-19 test kits are available “Nearly half of Republicans agree with ‘great replacement theory'” from The Washington Post “It's time to call white supremacy by its name” from Andscape “Court sides with Ted Cruz and strikes down campaign-finance restriction along ideological lines” from SCOTUSblog “The Supreme Court Makes Ted Cruz A Half-Million Dollars Richer” from HuffPost Your donation powers the journalism you rely on. Give today to support “Make Me Smart.” Have a question or comment about something you heard on the show? Email us at makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voice message at 508-827-6278, or 508-U-B-SMART.