Podcast appearances and mentions of Sonia Sotomayor

Editor's Note: This episode was previously uploaded with the incorrect audio. We apologize for the error. Sarah Isgur and David French kick off the episode by examining a conversion therapy case before the Supreme Court—one that, surprisingly, few seem to be talking about. Where are the sensational headlines claiming that the rights of LGBT youth are under direct threat, or that religious freedom is on the verge of extinction? The Agenda:—‘Independent as hogs on ice.'—Chiles v. Salazar—Viewpoint discrimination in therapy—Justice Sonia Sotomayor's interesting hypothetical—‘There are multiple failures of IQ tests that have led to this moment.'—Mail bag!—State courts v. federal courts Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sarah Isgur and David French kick off the episode by examining a conversion therapy case before the Supreme Court—one that, surprisingly, few seem to be talking about. Where are the sensational headlines claiming that the rights of LGBT youth are under direct threat, or that religious freedom is on the verge of extinction? The Agenda:—‘Independent as hogs on ice.'—Chiles v. Salazar—Viewpoint discrimination in therapy—Justice Sonia Sotomayor's interesting hypothetical—‘There are multiple failures of IQ tests that have led to this moment.'—Mail bag!—State courts v. federal courts Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's been another remarkable stretch in the world of courtrooms where Donald Trump's legal battles have made headlines across the country. Here we go right to what's happened for Donald Trump in the past few days and right up to this moment, September 28, 2025.Just days ago, the Supreme Court issued an order in Trump v. Slaughter—this case is all about Trump's removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause earlier in the year. That's significant because it challenged an almost century-old precedent from the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Executor, which restricts a president's ability to remove FTC commissioners unless there's proven inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. President Trump didn't claim any of those grounds, just policy differences. A federal judge had ordered Slaughter to be reinstated. The lower court's ruling was then stayed by the Supreme Court. The justices decided, in a 6-3 vote, that Trump's action could stand, at least for now, while the case moves forward. They ordered the parties to prepare for oral arguments this December. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a dissent, pointing to the statutory protection Congress gave FTC commissioners and warning about threats to the independence of agencies like this. The implications could be dramatic if the Court ends up narrowing or overturning the protection set in 1935, potentially reshaping not just the FTC but other independent agencies.Meanwhile, Trump's legal schedule remains packed with deadlines and developments. In the D.C. election interference case, Trump has been filing motions on presidential immunity and on dismissing charges using a slew of statutory arguments. Most deadlines for pretrial filings have been put on pause until October 24, as Judge Tanya Chutkan, who returned to jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity, issued a scheduling order. The battle continues over whether Trump should be shielded from prosecution for acts taken while in office. These are questions the courts are wrestling with right now, and will be through the end of this year.In Florida, the classified documents case has advanced after Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the superseding indictment, arguing that the appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith was unlawful. The government appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and now both sides are filing briefs, with friends of the court chiming in too. Oral arguments and decisions from that appeal could affect the timeline for any trial, or even its scope.Trump is also tangled up in New York—with appeals on last year's civil fraud judgment and the criminal conviction, where Justice Juan Merchan is now weighing a motion to set aside the jury's verdict, citing presidential immunity in light of the Supreme Court's recent guidance. A decision is expected from Justice Merchan in November.In Georgia, Trump and his codefendants are pushing appeals about disqualifying District Attorney Fani Willis, and all those appeals will be heard together, with oral arguments scheduled soon at the Court of Appeals.There has even been a class action suit filed by groups like the ACLU and NAACP, following a Supreme Court decision in CASA v. Trump, challenging aspects of the Trump administration's policy actions.As you can hear, it's a legal whirlwind that touches multiple corners of the country and asks fundamental questions about presidential power, agency independence, and the limits of the law. Come back next week for more, and thanks again for tuning in. This has been a Quiet Please production and for more check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This Day in Legal History: Sandra Day O'Connor Sworn in to SCOTUSOn September 25, 1981, Sandra Day O'Connor was sworn in as the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court, breaking a 191-year gender barrier in the nation's highest judicial body. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, O'Connor's appointment fulfilled a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Court and was confirmed by the Senate in a unanimous 99-0 vote. A former Arizona state senator and judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, O'Connor brought to the bench a pragmatic approach rooted in her Western upbringing and legislative experience.Her arrival on the Court was not merely symbolic—it signaled a shift in the perception of women in positions of legal authority and reshaped the public's view of judicial legitimacy. Though she identified as a moderate conservative, O'Connor quickly became a pivotal swing vote in many closely contested cases. Her jurisprudence favored case-by-case balancing over rigid ideological lines, particularly in areas such as abortion rights, affirmative action, and religious liberty.In the landmark Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) decision, O'Connor co-authored the controlling opinion that reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade, while allowing for certain state regulations. She also cast decisive votes in cases involving Title IX, voting rights, and the Establishment Clause. Her influence was especially pronounced in a Court that, during much of her tenure, was deeply divided ideologically.O'Connor's presence helped pave the way for future female justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her swearing-in marked not just the inclusion of a woman's voice on the bench, but a redefinition of judicial neutrality and consensus-building. O'Connor retired in 2006, but her legacy remains foundational to the evolution of the modern Supreme Court and its relationship to gender and law.Apple Inc. and US Bank have both exited enforcement actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) years earlier than originally scheduled. The terminations, posted on the CFPB's website, end the agency's oversight of their compliance with prior settlements. Apple was previously penalized, along with Goldman Sachs, for misleading Apple Card customers and mishandling service issues, resulting in a combined $89 million in penalties and restitution. Though Apple had been subject to five years of compliance monitoring, that obligation was lifted after less than one year. Goldman Sachs remains under CFPB monitoring.US Bank faced enforcement in 2023 for freezing unemployment benefit accounts during the COVID-19 pandemic and was required to pay $20.7 million in penalties and customer redress. Its five-year monitoring period has also ended prematurely. These terminations follow a recent trend of the CFPB closing enforcement cases early, including those involving Navy Federal Credit Union and Toyota Motor Credit Corp., as the agency braces for budget-related staffing reductions. The CFPB, Apple, and US Bank have not commented publicly on the decisions.Apple, US Bank Latest to Exit CFPB Enforcement Actions EarlyThe U.S. Department of Justice is continuing its investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud, reportedly following pressure from President Donald Trump. The probe, led by senior DOJ official Ed Martin, is based in the Eastern District of Virginia and focuses on whether James misrepresented her residence status on mortgage applications. The case originated from a referral by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, though James denies any wrongdoing.The investigation had previously stalled after Erik Siebert, the former U.S. attorney overseeing the matter, concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence to press charges. Siebert resigned last week amid internal pressure, and was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump-aligned attorney recently sworn in as interim U.S. attorney. Trump intensified calls for action with a now-deleted Truth Social post demanding prosecution.Attorney General Pam Bondi, who appointed Martin as a special attorney, has publicly supported continuing the investigation. Her office emphasized that the case was ongoing and not being reopened, signaling a firm stance on pursuing alleged fraud against the government. Halligan, formerly Trump's lawyer in his classified documents case, has not commented on the James probe.Letitia James Mortgage Fraud Probe Is Moving Ahead at DOJ (1)Two Black men, Alan Swanson and Willie Bennett, have received a combined $150,000 settlement from the city of Boston after being wrongly accused in a 1989 murder case that intensified racial tensions. The case involved the killing of Carol Stuart, a pregnant white woman, whose husband falsely claimed they had been abducted by a Black man. Swanson and Bennett were arrested and publicly identified as suspects, though they were never formally charged. The husband later took his own life after his story unraveled, and his brother admitted to helping hide the murder weapon.Bennett will receive $100,000, and Swanson will receive $50,000. In 2023, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu formally apologized to both men following renewed public attention from the HBO series Murder in Boston, which revisited the case and its racially charged aftermath. The episode remains a painful example of how institutional bias and racial profiling distorted justice and harmed innocent people.The settlement also reflects broader efforts by U.S. cities to confront historic injustices in the wake of national reckoning following the 2020 police killing of George Floyd.Black men wrongly linked to 1989 Boston murder get $150,000 settlement | ReutersThe Arizona Supreme Court has rejected a proposal that would have allowed individuals without full law licenses to represent or prosecute criminal defendants after completing a shortened training path. The plan, developed by the Administrative Office of the Courts, aimed to address attorney shortages in rural areas and ease the burden on public defender and prosecutor offices by offering a faster, more affordable route to limited criminal practice. Participants would have undergone two semesters of criminal law classes, a nine-month supervised practice period, and passed a specialized exam.However, the proposal faced strong opposition from prosecutors and public defenders, who warned it could lower public confidence in indigent defense, depress pay rates, and lead to constitutional challenges. Critics also argued the plan might reinforce negative perceptions about the quality of representation for low-income defendants.Arizona already allows non-lawyers to perform limited legal work in areas like family and landlord-tenant law, but this proposal would have been the first to extend that model into criminal defense. The state will continue exploring alternative licensing routes, such as the Lawyer Apprentice Program, which offers a path to licensure for law graduates who fail the bar exam by placing them in supervised legal work for two years.Arizona nixes fast-track lawyer licensing plan for criminal cases | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Only Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas have questioned the Trust Doctrine and Plenary Powers Doctrine. They all call themselves "justices", so where is the justice and where are Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor?

A mini-Epstein-Trump documentary video is projected on Windsor Castle as Trump and Melania arrive for their Royal Visit; Kash Patel is greeted with a Legal AF Video as he's cross examined about Epstein in the House Judiciary Committee; Pam Bondi's law school education is questioned by Justice Sotomayor; Lisa Cook is still on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and votes on rates as Trump loses again; Dr. Monarez testifies that RFK Jr. effectively ordered her to lie about the anti-vax recommendations of the CDC's board; and Trump sets himself up for a big federal sanction for bad faith failing against The NY Times. Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo join forces to brief our audience on these burning issues and so much more on the top rated Legal AF podcast. Support Our Sponsors: Soul: Go to https://GetSoul.com and use code LEGALAF to get 30% OFF your order! Qualia: Head to https://qualialife.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 15% off your purchase! Magic Spoon: Get this exclusive offer when you use promo code LEGALAF at https://MagicSpoon.com/LEGALAF Smalls: Head to https://Smalls.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 50% off your first order PLUS free shipping! Subscribe to Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kash Patel flames out and Fox News throws him an anchor not a life preserver during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing testimony. Pam Bondi forgot that “hate speech” is just protected first amendment speech that she can't prosecute, and Justice Sotomayor tells her so.  Why hasn't Brian Kilmeade been prosecuted by Pam Bondi for “hate speech” for calling for the “lethal injection” of unhoused Americans? Trump is on a fast track to another federal court sanction for bad faith lawsuit filing with the new “$55 billion dollar” defamation suit filed by Trump against the New York Times.  And will the Epstein pedophile scandal take down 2 Administrations, as Trump visits the UK Prime Minister at the worst possible time.  Michael Popok is at The Intersection to provide his unique brand of commentary. Uplift: Elevate your workspace and energize your year with Uplift Desk. Go to https://upliftdesk.com/legalaf for a special offer exclusive to our audience. Miracle Made: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Check out The Popok Firm at: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF by MeidasTouch podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595 Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Compare and contrast as ACB and Sotomayor ride (media) circuit. ----- Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor are both hitting the talk shows and it's highlighting how awkward the nation's relationship with the Supreme Court really is. Barrett went on Fox and accurately stated that the Constitution prohibits Trump running for a third term. Then the host offered a "wink wink" prompt and she started backpedaling. Meanwhile, Sotomayor went on Colbert and bent over backward to give her conservative colleagues the benefit of the doubt, requiring Colbert to step in and remind us of the fire in Sotomayor's dissent. Two very different media hits, but a consistent reminder that the justices just aren't willing to forge a genuine connection with the public over media. Also, Ropes & Gray maintains a single-tier partnership (for now) and Megan Thee Stallion case introduces the world to process servers taking things up a notch.

Pahua is the musical project of Mexico City–based producer, singer, and DJ Paulina Sotomayor, known for weaving electronic beats with Latin American folk traditions. Pahua will be giving a free performance on September 20 for West Lafayette, Indiana's Global Fest. Pahau rose to prominence in 2015 with Sotomayor, an electronic music duo featuring her brother Raul. She launched her solo career in 2020, quickly gaining attention for her ability to blend hip hop and house, with traditional sounds from Mexico, Bolivia, Argentina and Colombia. Pahua has carved out a unique space in the international electronic music scene, earning festival appearances and collaborations across Latin America and beyond.

Compare and contrast as ACB and Sotomayor ride (media) circuit. ----- Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor are both hitting the talk shows and it's highlighting how awkward the nation's relationship with the Supreme Court really is. Barrett went on Fox and accurately stated that the Constitution prohibits Trump running for a third term. Then the host offered a "wink wink" prompt and she started backpedaling. Meanwhile, Sotomayor went on Colbert and bent over backward to give her conservative colleagues the benefit of the doubt, requiring Colbert to step in and remind us of the fire in Sotomayor's dissent. Two very different media hits, but a consistent reminder that the justices just aren't willing to forge a genuine connection with the public over media. Also, Ropes & Gray maintains a single-tier partnership (for now) and Megan Thee Stallion case introduces the world to process servers taking things up a notch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today I want to speak about Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo — a Supreme Court ruling that affects not just law, but who we are as a nation — and especially about one justice's dissent that stands as a moral compass in the storm.The Ruling: What HappenedIn Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, the Supreme Court's conservative majority stayed an injunction that had barred ICE in Los Angeles from arrests based solely on factors like race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or accented English, being found in certain locations, or working certain types of low-wage jobs. The district court had found that ICE was relying on those four factors alone in many cases, which the Fourth Amendment forbids.The Supreme Court permitted the government to resume those kinds of detentions under that standard, even though no detailed majority opinion was published. The public only knows who is responsible, and the full force of what's allowed now, because of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent.Justice Sotomayor: Her Wisdom and Her WordsJustice Sotomayor's dissent is not just a legal disagreement. It is an act of truth-telling. She writes:“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.” These words cut to the heart of what is at stake. They force us to acknowledge that policy, when unrestrained, can touch innocent lives in ways that tear at the fabric of justice.She continues:“Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.” In those few words, she reminds us that rights do not defend themselves. They depend on someone speaking up even when the cost is high, even when the majority is quiet.Why Her Dissent Matters* Naming the harm: Justice Sotomayor does more than identify legal error. She names the human toll — people seized because of their appearance, language, type of work. She calls out the injustice by telling us plainly: “looks Latino … speaks Spanish.” Those are not abstractions, but people's lives.* Moral clarity: The phrase “while our constitutional freedoms are lost” is chilling because it suggests we are already losing them — or letting them slip away. She doesn't wait for them to go; she challenges us not to.* Courage in dissent: In the face of a decision made without full court procedure—without argument, without a signed majority opinion—she stands alone (joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson) to preserve the idea that constitutional protections mean something. She does not allow the marginalized to be erased by silence or ambiguity.Lessons & Charge for UsWe learn from her that:* Words have power, especially when spoken in courage. Her dissent is more than dissent — it is a warning. It is a mirror for what America promises to be.* Constitutional rights depend on vigilance. The language of the law is fragile if those sworn to uphold it remain silent.* Each generation must defend justice. Her dissent is an invitation: not to be mere spectators, but participants. To ensure that rights aren't conditional on language, race, or job, but universal.Conclusion: Her Voice, Our ResponsibilityJustice Sotomayor has raised her voice in this case with precision, force, and conviction. Her words—“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job” — will echo long after this ruling unless we do more than remember them.As she says, “Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.” Let us not stand idly by. Let us take her dissent as our rallying cry. To speak, to organize, to defend what should never have to be defended: equal justice under the law.Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit affordingyourlife.substack.com

Notes and Links to Cynthia Miller-Idriss' Work       Cynthia Miller-Idriss is the author of Hate in the Homeland: The New Global Far Right and Man Up: The New Misogyny and the Rise of Violent Extremism. She is an opinion columnist for MSNBC and writes for The New York Times, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs, The Washington Post, Politico, USA Today, The Boston Globe, and more. Buy Man Up: The New Misogyny and the Rise of Violent Extremism   Cynthia's Website   At about 1:25, Cynthia talks about the run-up to Pub Day, and how it's different than for her previous books At about 3:00, Pete asks Cynthia about the unfortunate “timeliness” of her work, especially the book At about 5:45, the two discuss seeds for the book, as Cynthia expands on the Turning Point Suffragist Museum and its history and importance At about 7:35, the two discuss the not-so-distant history of misogyny and Simone de Beauvoir, and rising "hostile sexism and misogyny” in the social media and outside world At about 9:55, Cynthia talks about the silence that often is pervasive regarding “gender policing” how misogyny must be central in more explorations of violence  At about 12:05, Cynthia shares some insightful and profound quotes from young people regarding gender norms and expectations At about 16:35, Pete and Cynthia discuss Eliot Rodger and a recent school shooter and the ways in which the “warning signs” were so numerous for a long period of time, but resources are often hard to tap into, even from well-meaning parents and adults and friends  At about 21:25, the two discuss The Death of Expertise and ideas of “alternative facts” and a pervasive lack of trust in “experts” and government At about 23:00, Cynthia responds to Pete's noting that she purposely avoids naming past shooters At about 25:00, the two lay out the book's structure  At about 24:25, Pete reports some eye-popping stats of misogynist violence  At about 26:05 Cynthia and Pete reflect on the profound quote from the book that contemporary girls have “more freedom but less power, and boys less freedom and more power” At about 24:40, Cynthia discusses masculinity/sexuality paradigm shifts  At about 29:35, Cynthia and Pete laugh and almost cry regarding fitness as being claimed by the masculine right, such as with jeans-clad RFK At about 30:35, the two reflect on the moral arc of the universe and disturbing trends with Gen Z men At about 32:20, Cynthia responds to Pete reflecting on Trump voters and his misogyny and fixed and demanding gender rigidity and policing  At about 34:15, Pete notes the “intersectionality” of Christian nationalism and masculinity, and Cynthia expands on the adherents' beliefs At about 36:15, the two discuss ideas of “containment” and visceral hatred and misogyny in hate email and chants and lashing out at women  At about 37:20, Cynthia talks about the data that charts female elected officials and hateful attacks, including from online vitriol and memes At about 39:35, Cynthia talks about people downplaying and excusing male behavior  At about 40:55, More discussion of women needing to be in the home/domestic sphere and women as a “safety net” in parts of the West, especially in the US, even up to Taylor Swift At about 42:30, Cynthia uses an anecdote from Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation to illustrate racist/sexist policing of women and women of color At about 44:50, “bonding through slurs” and online gaming's influence on misogyny and young men is discussed At about 48:30, The two discuss some stunning (or not) numbers about the way Andrew Tate is viewed At about 49:35, Cynthia responds to Pete's question about what sets Andrew Tate apart  At about 52:10, Scapegoating of sexual and racial minorities is discussed, and the “spiral” of keeping children safe and QAnon, anti-vax, etc. At about 54:40, Cynthia responds to Pete asking about possible remedies in her book, and how one avoids “preaching” in talking to those who have been radicalized online and off At about 57:00, Cynthia talks about multifaceted remedies for a multifaceted issue At about 58:00, Cynthia puts a puzzling and "hilarious" and telling interaction with a young man into perspective At about 1:02:05, Cynthia shouts out resources provided in the book's appendix, and how proceeds from the book often benefit and highlight local gender-based violence organizations       You can now subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, and leave me a five-star review. You can also ask for the podcast by name using Alexa, and find the pod on Stitcher, Spotify, and on Amazon Music. Follow Pete on IG, where he is @chillsatwillpodcast, or on Twitter, where he is @chillsatwillpo1. You can watch other episodes on YouTube-watch and subscribe to The Chills at Will Podcast Channel. Please subscribe to both the YouTube Channel and the podcast while you're checking out this episode.       Pete is very excited to have one or two podcast episodes per month featured on the website of Chicago Review of Books. The audio will be posted, along with a written interview culled from the audio. His conversation with Hannah Pittard, a recent guest, is up at Chicago Review.     Sign up now for The Chills at Will Podcast Patreon: it can be found at patreon.com/chillsatwillpodcastpeterriehl      Check out the page that describes the benefits of a Patreon membership, including cool swag and bonus episodes. Thanks in advance for supporting Pete's one-man show, DIY podcast and extensive reading, research, editing, and promoting to keep this independent podcast pumping out high-quality content!    This month's Patreon bonus episode features an exploration of flawed characters, protagonists who are too real in their actions, and horror and noir as being where so much good and realistic writing takes place.    Pete has added a $1 a month tier for “Well-Wishers” and Cheerleaders of the Show.     This is a passion project, a DIY operation, and Pete would love for your help in promoting what he's convinced is a unique and spirited look at an often-ignored art form.    The intro song for The Chills at Will Podcast is “Wind Down” (Instrumental Version), and the other song played on this episode was “Hoops” (Instrumental)” by Matt Weidauer, and both songs are used through ArchesAudio.com.     Please tune in for Episode 298 with Robert Paylor, an Inspirational speaker, quadriplegia survivor, resilience expert, and author. His book is Paralyzed to Powerful:  Lessons from a Quadriplegic's Journey.    This episode airs on September 23.    Please go to ceasefiretoday.org, and/or https://act.uscpr.org/a/letaidin to call your congresspeople and demand an end to the forced famine and destruction of Gaza and the Gazan people.

Actor and singer Anthony Ramos joins Jenna as co-host! Style experts stop by the studio to break down the biggest looks from the 2025 Emmy Awards—from best-dressed duos to top trends and more. Plus, Justice Sonia Sotomayor shares her new children's book, inspired by life lessons from her mother, whom she calls her “first and greatest teacher.” And, comedian Michelle Buteau stops by to talk about her upcoming stand-up tour. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

OA1189 - The Supreme Court's next term may not start until October, but their infamous shadow--sorry, “interim”--docket is in rare form as they issue snap decisions on everything from exactly where one 14-year-old boy can pee to just how openly racist ICE gets to be. Matt and Jenessa review which major precedents the conservative majority is ignoring to enable Trump's worst policies this week before getting on to some Epstein-related legal updates and a radical new development from the Board of Immigration Appeals with massive implications for Trump's mass deportation plans.  Finally, Matt drops a footnote to address one of our nation's least pressing legal questions: is it really true that a wedding in Kentucky can be legally officiated by a dead bear once described as “filled to the brim with cocaine”? SCOTUS order in Trump v. Slaughter  (9/8/2025)  SCOTUS order (with Kavanaugh concurrence and Sotomayor dissent) in Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo (9/8/25) Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 21 I&N 216 (BIA 2025) Kentucky Revised Statute 402.070  P.S. Matt messed up his audio and is very sorry about it!

"The View" co-hosts react to conservative activist Charlie Kirk being shot and killed on a college campus in Utah on Wednesday as politicians from both sides of the aisle speak out against the violence and urge Americans to come together. Then, ABC News Chief National Correspondent Matt Gutman joins us from Utah Valley University with the latest following conservative activist Charlie Kirk being shot and killed on the college campus Wednesday. The co-hosts weigh in and reflect as today marks the 24th year since 9/11. Later, the co-hosts discuss a potential reconciliation between Prince Harry and King Charles after they met. America Ferrera joins "The View" and reacts to Justice Sotomayor's dissent in a recent Supreme Court, she looks back on her role in "Ugly Betty" and shares the true story behind her film, "The Lost Bus." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Trump's GOP allies are trying to deny the existence of the Epstein birthday note even after it was released by the House Oversight Committee, and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not mince words in her dissent to the court's decision to allow ICE to target all Latinos regardless of citizenship status. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor discusses the court's frequent use of the so-called “shadow docket” and explains why she issued a strong dissent to the court's ruling on ICE's powers. Justice Sotomayor's latest book, “Just Shine! How To Be A Better You” is available now in English and Spanish.  To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

(Sept 10, 2025)Auto loan delinquencies signal bigger trouble. Alleged gender wage gap widens. After blistering dissent, Sotomayor talks Supreme Court with Colbert.  Inside the fight over the recycling label on your milk carton.

'The View' co-hosts react to files from the Jeffrey Epstein estate being released, which includes a book of messages that is said to contain a 2003 letter Pres. Trump allegedly signed for Epstein's 50th birthday, which Trump denies. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor joins "The View" to discuss her message to Americans after Monday's immigration ruling and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Then, she discusses the inspiration behind her new children's book, "Just Shine!" Queen Latifah joins and looks back on her 1993 hit song "U.N.I.T.Y" and inspiring a generation of female rappers, the ending of her show "The Equalizer" and discusses honoring Quincy Jones at this year's Oscars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks two recent Supreme Court emergency decisions. First, she discusses the Court's move to allow ICE raids in Los Angeles to proceed, highlighting the legal debate over what constitutes reasonable suspicion for immigration enforcement. Next, she examines a ruling permitting President Trump to fire an FTC commissioner, raising questions about presidential authority over executive agencies.Jessica then dives into a major Federal Circuit Court decision striking down President Trump's expansive tariffs, explaining why the court found he lacked statutory authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). With the Trump administration seeking Supreme Court review, Jessica explores what these rulings mean for executive power, immigration, and international trade.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1. 1. Supreme Court Emergency Docket Decisions: Jessica opens the episode with a breakdown of two new decisions from the Supreme Court's “emergency docket.” These aren't full decisions on the merits, but rather interim rulings that signal how the Court may eventually decide, and have real practical effects in the meantime.2. The Federal Circuit Court's Landmark Ruling on Tariffs: Jessica explains a recent and highly significant Federal Circuit Court decision regarding President Trump's use of reciprocal tariffs. The court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose sweeping tariffs as he did.3. The Core Legal Issue: Presidential Authority Under the IEEPA: A central theme is whether the IEEPA grants the president power to impose tariffs. The court found it does not, highlighting that the statute's language does not include terms like "tariff," "duty," or "tax," distinguishing it from other statutes where Congress has explicitly delegated tariff authority.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

We're hearing from the family at the center of a confrontation at a Phillies game last week over a home run ball. Drew Feltwell came up with the ball after a scrum in the crowd and gave it to his son Lincoln. But a woman confronted Drew grabbing his arm and demanding the ball. Feltwell told CBS News Correspondent Cristian Benavides giving up the ball was worth much more than the souvenir. For our latest edition of "Never too Late" CBS News Bay Area Anchor Anne Makovec caught the acting bug at a young age, but life took her in a different direction. Recently, she got a chance to pull off something bold and become part of a "Beautiful" CBS soap opera. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has made it her mission to help all children shine. The justice is a best-selling children's book author. Her latest is "Just Shine!: How to be a Better you." It tells the story of her mother, Celina, who helped everyone around her shine their brightest. She tells us all about it. The one and only Oprah is here to reveal her newest book club selection, only on CBS Mornings! For a very special talk of the table. One of the biggest names in stand-up comedy, Nate Bargatze is about to take another big step. The 46-year-old has been on an absolute tear. He sold more than 1.2 million tickets to his "The be Funny Tour" last year. It made him the highest-grossing comedian in the country. This Sunday may be his biggest gig yet. He's hosting the 77th Emmy Awards here on CBS and streaming on Paramount+. Actor Rain Wilson is now taking on a very different role from Dwight Schrute in "The Office." In a new action comedy called "Code 3." Wilson stars as Randy an underpaid, burned-out paramedic on his last 24-hour shift. What starts as a routine day spirals into a night full of chaos and emergencies. It's darkly comedic and deeply human and he tells us all about it. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Marc and Dan talk with Hans von Spakovsky about constitutional interpretation, Supreme Court rulings on immigration, and the role of justices like Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. They also discuss ICE enforcement in Los Angeles, RFK Jr.'s push to investigate pharmaceutical companies, Lara Trump's speech at the Missouri Right to Life fundraiser, and a new IP reform bill.

The Marc Cox Morning Show opens with Marc and Dan discussing Lara Trump's speech at the Missouri Right to Life banquet before 1,100 attendees, focused on fundraising to overturn Amendment 3 and the debate over initiative petition reform. They also cover Missouri abortion laws, the Charlotte murder of Iryna Serhutska, and a Supreme Court ruling upholding ICE enforcement. Hour 2 features Hans von Spakovsky on constitutional interpretation, Supreme Court rulings on immigration, and commentary on justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. John Lamping joins to talk Missouri politics, Amendment 3, and initiative petition reform. Political commentary includes Chuck Schumer's economic criticism and Democratic policies, plus local stories like the Miss America pageant and a stolen St. Louis food truck. Hour 3 begins with Todd Piro's humorous take on New York tax hikes, tax migration, and lifestyle differences between New York, Florida, and Missouri. Then Marc and Dan host 2A Tuesday with Luis Valdes of Gun Owners of America, covering constitutional carry, teachers carrying in schools, Florida's gun and ammo tax holiday, and the repeal of discriminatory gun laws. The hour closes with a Buck Don't Give a ____ segment on RFK Jr.'s claims about healthcare incentives and pharmaceutical influence. Hour 4 brings in Eben Brown of Fox News Radio on the Supreme Court's 6–3 ruling lifting restrictions on immigration raids in Los Angeles and the federal trial of Ryan Wesley Routh, accused of attempting to assassinate Donald Trump. Ryan Wiggins joins the conversation to weigh in on government subsidies, rising health insurance premiums, and the broader impact of government intervention in healthcare, education, and housing.

This Day in Legal History: A. Lincoln Admitted to BarOn September 9, 1836, Abraham Lincoln was licensed to practice law by the Illinois Supreme Court, setting in motion a legal and political career that would ultimately reshape American history. At the time, Lincoln was a 27-year-old former store clerk and self-taught frontier intellectual, with no formal legal education. Instead, like many aspiring attorneys of the era, Lincoln "read law" by apprenticing under established lawyers and studying foundational legal texts such as Blackstone's Commentaries and Chitty's Pleadings. His relentless self-education and growing reputation for honesty earned him the nickname “Honest Abe,” long before he entered the national spotlight.Shortly after being admitted to the bar, Lincoln moved to Springfield, Illinois, where he set up a law practice. His first lawsuit came less than a month later, on October 5, 1836, marking the beginning of a legal career that would span over two decades. Lincoln took on a wide variety of cases—ranging from debt collection and land disputes to criminal defense and railroad litigation—and traveled extensively on the Illinois Eighth Judicial Circuit.His courtroom demeanor was marked by clarity, logic, and moral conviction, attributes that would later define his presidency. Practicing law not only gave Lincoln financial stability but also honed the rhetorical and analytical skills that would serve him in legislative debates and national addresses. His legal work with the Illinois Central Railroad and other corporate clients exposed him to the country's economic transformation, deepening his understanding of commerce, labor, and the law's role in shaping society.Lincoln's rise from rural obscurity to respected attorney mirrored the American ideal of self-made success, and his legal background profoundly shaped his political philosophy. It was as a lawyer and legislator that he began to articulate his opposition to slavery's expansion, using constitutional and moral arguments that would later guide his presidency and the Union's legal stance during the Civil War.His legal reasoning and insistence on the rule of law would ultimately be central to the Emancipation Proclamation, his wartime governance, and the framework for reconstructing the nation. The law gave Lincoln the tools to interpret and preserve the Constitution, even amid its greatest crisis.Lincoln's admission to the bar on this day in 1836 was not just a personal milestone—it was a foundational step toward the presidency and toward a redefinition of American liberty and union that would endure for generations.Events ripple in time like waves on a pond, and Lincoln's admission to the bar in 1836 is one such stone cast into history. Had he not secured that license—had he not taught himself law from borrowed books and legal treatises—it is likely he never would have risen to national prominence or attained the presidency. Without Lincoln's leadership in 1860, the United States may well have fractured permanently into separate nations, altering the course of the Civil War and leaving a divided continent in its wake. That division would have profoundly reshaped global affairs in the 20th century. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact that there was a United States powerful and unified enough to confront the Nazi war machine in 1941 traces, in part, to a frontier shop clerk's grit, discipline, and determination to study Blackstone's Commentaries by candlelight.A Florida state appeals judge who sided with Donald Trump in a high-profile defamation case against the Pulitzer Prize Board has been confirmed to the federal bench. On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted 50–43 along party lines to approve Judge Ed Artau's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Artau is now the sixth Trump judicial nominee to be confirmed during the president's second term.Artau joined a panel earlier this year that allowed Trump's lawsuit to proceed after the Pulitzer Board declined to rescind a 2018 award given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a concurring opinion, Artau criticized the reporting as “now-debunked” and echoed calls to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court precedent that has long protected journalists from most defamation claims by public figures.The timing of Artau's nomination has drawn scrutiny from Senate Democrats, who argue it raises ethical concerns. Artau reportedly began conversations about a possible federal appointment just days after Trump's 2024 victory and interviewed with the White House shortly after issuing his opinion in the Pulitzer case. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the confirmation a “blatant” example of quid pro quo, while others questioned Artau's impartiality.In response, Artau defended his conduct during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, stating that ambition for higher office alone doesn't disqualify a judge from ruling on politically sensitive cases and that he holds no personal bias requiring recusal.Florida judge who ruled for Trump in Pulitzer case confirmed to federal bench | ReutersAfter 21 years, one of legal academia's most influential blogs is shutting down. The TaxProf Blog, launched in 2004 by Pepperdine Law Dean Paul Caron, will cease publication by the end of September following the closure of its longtime host platform, Typepad. Caron said he isn't interested in rebuilding the site on a new platform, though he hopes to preserve the blog's extensive archive of nearly 56,000 posts.Initially focused on tax law, the blog evolved into a central hub for news and commentary on law schools, covering accreditation, rankings, faculty hiring, admissions trends, and more. It maintained its relevance even as other law professor blogs declined in the wake of Twitter's rise. Caron's regular posts made the site a must-read in the legal education world, often mixing in personal reflections and occasional commentary on religion.The closure also casts uncertainty over the broader Law Professor Blog Network, which includes around 60 niche academic blogs also hosted on Typepad. At least one, ImmigrationProf Blog, has already begun looking for a new publishing home.Reactions across the legal academy reflected the impact of the blog's departure. One law school dean likened it to daily sports reporting for legal education—a constant, trusted source of updates and debate.Groundbreaking law blog calls it quits after 21 years | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in a contentious immigration case, allowing federal agents to resume aggressive raids in Southern California. The Court granted a request from the Justice Department to lift a lower court order that had restricted immigration stops based on race, language, or occupation—factors critics argue are being used to disproportionately target Latino communities. The ruling, delivered in a brief, unsigned order with no explanation, permits the raids to continue while a broader legal challenge proceeds.The case stems from a July order by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who found that the administration's actions likely violated the Fourth Amendment by enabling racially discriminatory stops without reasonable suspicion. Her injunction applied across much of Southern California, but is now paused by the Supreme Court's decision.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the Court's other two liberals, issued a sharp dissent, warning that the decision effectively declares all Latinos "fair game to be seized at any time," regardless of citizenship. She described the raids as racially motivated and unconstitutional.California Governor Gavin Newsom and civil rights groups echoed those concerns. Newsom accused the Court of legitimizing racial profiling and called Trump's enforcement actions a form of "racial terror." The ACLU, representing plaintiffs in the case, including U.S. citizens, denounced the raids as part of a broader “racist deportation scheme.”The Trump administration, meanwhile, hailed the decision as a major legal victory. Attorney General Pam Bondi framed it as a rejection of “judicial micromanagement,” and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing separately, argued that while ethnicity alone cannot justify a stop, it may be used in combination with other factors.This ruling adds to a series of recent Supreme Court decisions backing Trump's immigration agenda, including policies that limit asylum protections and revoke humanitarian legal statuses. In Los Angeles, the raids and the use of military personnel in response to protests have escalated tensions between the federal government and local authorities.US Supreme Court backs Trump on aggressive immigration raids | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld an $83.3 million jury verdict against Donald Trump for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, rejecting his claims of presidential immunity. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the damages appropriate given the severity and persistence of Trump's conduct, which it called “remarkably high” in terms of reprehensibility. The ruling noted that Trump's attacks on Carroll grew more extreme as the trial neared, contributing to reputational and emotional harm.The lawsuit stemmed from Trump's repeated public denials of Carroll's allegation that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s. In 2019, Trump claimed Carroll was “not my type” and said she fabricated the story to sell books—comments he echoed again in 2022, prompting a second defamation suit. A jury in 2023 had already found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in an earlier case, awarding Carroll $5 million. That verdict was also upheld.Trump's legal team argued that his 2019 comments were made in his official capacity as president and should be shielded by presidential immunity. The court disagreed, citing a lack of legal basis to extend immunity in this context. Trump also objected to limits placed on his testimony during trial, but the appeals court upheld the trial judge's rulings as appropriate.The $83.3 million award includes $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages. Carroll's legal team expressed hope that the appeals process would soon conclude. Trump, meanwhile, framed the ruling as part of what he calls “Liberal Lawfare” amid multiple ongoing legal battles.Trump fails to overturn E. Jean Carroll's $83 million verdict | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week takes aim at the so-called "Taylor Swift Tax" in Rhode Island—an annual surtax on non-primary residences valued over $1 million. While the headline-grabbing nickname guarantees media coverage, the underlying policy is flawed, both economically and politically.Rhode Island isn't alone—Montana, Cape Cod, and Los Angeles have all attempted to capture revenue from wealthy property owners through targeted taxes on high-end real estate. But these narrowly tailored levies often distort markets, suppress transactions, and encourage avoidance rather than compliance. LA's mansion tax, for example, dramatically underperformed because property owners simply didn't sell.The appeal of taxing second homes is clear: they're luxury assets often owned by out-of-staters with little political influence. But that lack of local connection also makes them an unreliable revenue base. It's relatively easy to sell, reclassify, or relocate a vacation property, particularly for the affluent. And when policies hinge on fuzzy concepts like "primary residence," they invite loopholes and enforcement challenges—especially when properties are held by LLCs or trusts.Rhode Island's new tax could drive potential buyers to nearby Connecticut, undermining its own housing market and revenue goals. If states want to tax wealth effectively, they must resist headline-chasing and instead build durable, scalable policies: regular reassessments, vacancy levies, and infrastructure-based cost recovery. These methods avoid the pitfalls of ambiguous residency tests and create more predictable revenue streams.And because discretionary wealth is mobile, real solutions will require cooperation—harmonized assessments, multistate compacts, and shared reporting. But more fundamentally, states looking for progressive revenue should aim higher—toward income and wealth taxes—rather than tinkering at the margins with weekend homes.Rhode Island Should Shake Off ‘Taylor Swift Tax' on Second Homes 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

News from the Supreme Court today….In a 6-3 decision, it blocked a federal judge's ruling that restricted federal officers' ability to conduct immigration stops in the Los Angeles area…. The Court also received… a formal request from the White House to let it hold back 4 billion dollars of congressionally approved foreign aid. The appeal comes after a federal judge ruled last week that the administration must spend the money… -On Capitol Hill, multiple media accounts this afternoon say Congressional leaders are trying to de-escalate a standoff over the Sept. 30 government funding deadline, with both Republicans and Democrats saying they'd be open to a short-term bill that wouldn't include substantial funding cuts…. Meanwhile, Senate Republican leader John Thune is taking the first steps to change rules on executive nominations… This after Democrats blocked several of the president's picks before August recess…. -From the Washington Post…A divided Supreme Court on Monday lifted a ruling by a lower-court judge who placed limits on immigration raids in the Los Angeles area after finding federal agents were indiscriminately targeting people based on race and other factors… The justices sided with the Trump administration, which argued that a temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge was hampering its ability to crack down on illegal migration and that the stops by authorities were not unlawful…. The Post goes on to write…The majority did not offer a rationale for the decision, which is common in cases decided on the Supreme Court's emergency docket…. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion that illegal immigration is a major issue in the Los Angeles area…. He added…“To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court's case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor' when considered along with other salient factors… Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Kentanji Brown Jackson sharply disagreed… Justice Sotomayor wrote “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job…Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.” That from The Washington Post… Now….we'll hear what California Attorney General Rob Bonta had to say about the decision coming up… But now to the White House request to hold back 4 billion dollars in federal aid… NBC News' Lawrence Hurley reporting today… The case marks a showdown over to what extent the president can refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated, a brewing issue as the Trump administration has embraced a sweeping view of presidential power since taking office again in January…. In the new filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer described the case as raising “a grave and urgent threat” to the power of the presidency…. Under the Constitution, it is the job of Congress to allocate funds that the president can spend…. While the Trump administration has said it wants to withhold the 4 billion dollars…it has said it plans to spend another 6.5 billion dollars that Congress appropriated... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 allowing federal agents to detain people based on race, accent, or place of work. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned the decision puts Latinos at risk regardless of citizenship, while civil rights groups called it “racism with a badge.” Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the ruling as a victory, vowing roving patrols will continue. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Become a Member and Give Us Some DAMN GOOD Support :https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX8lCshQmMN0dUc0JmQYDdg/joinwatch the full episode here - https://youtu.be/TiON4oIFxLcGet your Twins merch and have a chance to win our Damn Good Giveaways! - https://officialhodgetwins.com/Get Optimal Human, your all in one daily nutritional supplement - https://optimalhuman.com/Want to be a guest on the Twins Pod? Contact us at bookings@twinspod.comDownload Free Twins Pod Content - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_iNb2RYwHUisypEjkrbZ3nFoBK8k60COFollow Twins Pod Everywhere -X - https://twitter.com/TheTwinsPodInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/thetwinspod/Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/twinspodTikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@twinspodYouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX8lCshQmMN0dUc0JmQYDdgRumble - https://rumble.com/c/TwinsPodSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/79BWPxHPWnijyl4lf8vWVu?si=03960b3a8b6b4f74Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/twins-pod/id1731232810

Follow along with slideshow visuals HERE. ENCORE ALERT! The Feminist Buzzkills are out on a summer break! But, no need to fear – we're leaving y'all with some extra brain juice to keep you company while we're offline. We're dropping an ENCORE POD EPISODE of when we collabed with the iconic “Boom! Lawyered” hosts Imani Gandy and Jess Pieklo IN DC and broke down SCOTUS' Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic arguments back in April. It went a little something like this… ATTENTION BUZZKILLAHSSSSS! WE DID A LIVE THING – in DC! Yep. Your “Feminist Buzzkills” joined forces with the “Boom! Lawyered” pod for an epic live show! After getting word that SCOTUS was hearing a case that could result in eliminating any healthcare provider from Medicaid payments if they provide abortion, we geared up for battle for one super-sized show with the amazing “Boom! Lawyered” hosts Imani Gandy (Rewire Editor-at-Large) and Jess Pieklo (Rewire Senior Vice President, Executive Editor.) We break down what this case means, and fill you in on all the outrageous tricks clown lawmakers across the country are playing trying to destroy access to reproductive care. It was a packed show full of rage and shenanigans and the DC crowd LOVED IT!  This episode unpacks the arguments in Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a case that could upend Medicaid beneficiaries ability to enforce their rights under the public benefit program all because conservatives hate abortion. We get into the history of efforts to kick Planned Parenthood out of the Medicaid program, the bad faith arguments made by conservatives to the Court as they try to do so again, and how a bad decision in the case could impact way more than access to abortion. Recorded LIVE at the Black Cat in DC, we gotta give a huge shout out and special thanks to the Black Cat crew for making the space for our loud asses AND for everyone who showed up! Tune in for the legal brilliance, the laughs, the knowledge, and some actions you can take to be the change you wanna see in this world.  Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  Scared? Got Questions about the continued assault on your reproductive rights? THE FBK LINES ARE OPEN! Just call or text (201) 574-7402, leave your questions or concerns, and Lizz and Moji will pick a few to address on the pod! OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: WE DID A THING EARLIER THIS MONTH! The Feminist Buzzkills took some big patriarchy-smashing heat to The Big Easy and recorded a live workshop that'll train you in coming for anti-abobo lawmakers, spotting and fighting against fake clinics, AND gears you up on how to support abortion patients and providers. We turned it into a podcast episode so you can listen to it HERE. P.S. You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our past Operation Save Abortion pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead IG: @LizzWinstead Bluesky: @LizzWinstead.bsky.socialMoji Alawode-El IG: @Mojilocks Bluesky: @Mojilocks.bsky.social CO-HOSTS:Imani Gandy IG: @angryblacklady / Bluesky: @angryblacklady.bsky.socialJessica Pieklo IG: @hegemommy / Bluesky: @hegemommy.bsky.social CO-HOST LINKS:Rewire News Group IG: @rewirenewsgroup / Bluesky: @rewirenewsgroup.comBoom! Lawyered NEWS DUMP:The Supreme Court Struggles With Whether to Wound Medicaid to Spite Planned ParenthoodAAF Pays Dr. Chuck Schumer a Visit AAF Pays Dr. Michelle Fischbach a VisitSeventeen States Attack HIPAA and Reproductive Health Privacy5 Takeaways From Tuesday's Elections, Including Bad News for Elon MuskWisconsin Voters Approve Constitutional Amendment to Enshrine Voter ID Law EPISODE LINKS:Operation Save AbortionOSA WORKSHOP: Start at 30:15 for the workshopExpose Fake ClinicsBUY AAF MERCH!EMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist SHOULD I BE SCARED? Text or call us with the abortion news that is scaring you: (201) 574-7402 FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK PodcastInstagram ~ @AbortionFrontBluesky ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFront TALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!

In 1985, Charles McCrory found his wife, Julie Bonds, brutally murdered in their Andalusia, Alabama, home. Just two small marks on her arm—misrepresented in court as a definitive “bite mark”—became the sole forensic evidence used to convict him for her murder.A forensic odontologist, famed for testifying at Ted Bundy's trial, claimed the impressions matched McCrory's like a fingerprint. Yet decades later, that same expert fully recanted the testimony, acknowledging the scientific consensus now recognises bite mark evidence as unreliable “junk science”.With no blood, no DNA, and hair in the victim's hand that didn't match McCrory's, his conviction rested entirely on this flawed forensic interpretation. Over 40 years later, even as two independent forensic dentists testified that the so called bite mark was never human, Alabama courts repeatedly denied him a new trial, judging that his lengthy imprisonment still stood, and that procedural hurdles outweighed modern scienceIn July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. Justice Sotomayor warned that wrongful convictions like his, based on “faulty science,” are startlingly common and urged state and federal lawmakers to enact stronger safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's August 13th, 2025, and once again, the spotlight is trained on former President Donald Trump—this time not for a campaign rally or a press conference, but for a series of high-stakes courtroom dramas that have played out across the country over the last several days. The legal turbulence circling Trump feels relentless, but the energy in and around courthouses from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. is unmistakable—these aren't just headline-grabbing disputes, they're shaping the future boundaries of presidential power, military deployment, and civil liberties.Right now, all eyes are on San Francisco where a landmark civil trial is underway, scrutinizing Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles during massive protests earlier this summer. The State of California, led by Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong, is making its case that Trump's administration illegally used the military for domestic law enforcement—essentially, arguing that the lines between troop and police vanished somewhere on the streets of LA. Yesterday's courtroom scene was tense, with a senior military officer—testifying just after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted about plans to “flood” D.C. with National Guard—insisting that every move was above board. But Judge Charles R. Breyer suggested to all present that Hegseth's words may very well sway the decision, especially as the state warns this was only “the beginning,” with cities like Baltimore and Oakland on Trump's own shortlist for future troop deployments, and California demanding immediate, enforceable boundaries on the use of federal force in civilian cities.Meanwhile, these California proceedings are just the latest in an avalanche of legal challenges enveloping Trump. In fact, the Lawfare Litigation Tracker reports nearly 300 active cases challenging Trump administration executive actions—many dealing with national security or broad assertions of federal authority. Several judges over the summer ruled both for and against the federal government, and 14 Supreme Court orders have granted stays or vacated lower court decisions, underscoring that the legal battles are playing out at every judicial level.Speaking of the Supreme Court, just days ago, in Trump v. CASA, Inc., the justices weighed in on Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, granted a partial stay on nationwide injunctions, sharply limiting lower courts' reach and only preventing enforcement in cases where plaintiffs had standing. While the government won an important tactical victory, three justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan—vocally dissented, warning that narrowing such injunctions left many at risk.Through it all, Trump and his officials mostly shrug off the court orders, pressing ahead with their agenda across the country. For the next two weeks, with more hearings set—like the August 26th showdown in the Thakur et al v. Trump case—Americans remain riveted, waiting to see not just how the courts will judge Trump's actions, but how those judgments might redefine the balance between executive authority and states' rights.Thanks for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease.AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

In 1985, Charles McCrory found his wife, Julie Bonds, brutally murdered in their Andalusia, Alabama, home. Just two small marks on her arm—misrepresented in court as a definitive “bite mark”—became the sole forensic evidence used to convict him for her murder.A forensic odontologist, famed for testifying at Ted Bundy's trial, claimed the impressions matched McCrory's like a fingerprint. Yet decades later, that same expert fully recanted the testimony, acknowledging the scientific consensus now recognises bite mark evidence as unreliable “junk science”.With no blood, no DNA, and hair in the victim's hand that didn't match McCrory's, his conviction rested entirely on this flawed forensic interpretation. Over 40 years later, even as two independent forensic dentists testified that the so called bite mark was never human, Alabama courts repeatedly denied him a new trial, judging that his lengthy imprisonment still stood, and that procedural hurdles outweighed modern scienceIn July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. Justice Sotomayor warned that wrongful convictions like his, based on “faulty science,” are startlingly common and urged state and federal lawmakers to enact stronger safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1985, Charles McCrory found his wife, Julie Bonds, brutally murdered in their Andalusia, Alabama, home. Just two small marks on her arm—misrepresented in court as a definitive “bite mark”—became the sole forensic evidence used to convict him for her murder.A forensic odontologist, famed for testifying at Ted Bundy's trial, claimed the impressions matched McCrory's like a fingerprint. Yet decades later, that same expert fully recanted the testimony, acknowledging the scientific consensus now recognises bite mark evidence as unreliable “junk science”.With no blood, no DNA, and hair in the victim's hand that didn't match McCrory's, his conviction rested entirely on this flawed forensic interpretation. Over 40 years later, even as two independent forensic dentists testified that the so called bite mark was never human, Alabama courts repeatedly denied him a new trial, judging that his lengthy imprisonment still stood, and that procedural hurdles outweighed modern scienceIn July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. Justice Sotomayor warned that wrongful convictions like his, based on “faulty science,” are startlingly common and urged state and federal lawmakers to enact stronger safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We Like Shooting Episode 622 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Midwest Industries, Swampfox Optics, RMA Defense, XTech Tactical, Night Fision, and Mitchell Defense   Welcome to the We Like Shooting Show, episode 622! Our cast tonight is Jeremy Pozderac, Aaron Krieger, Nick Lynch, and me Shawn Herrin, welcome to the show!   GOALS   August 9th and 10th in Knoxville, Tennessee. Knoxville Convention Center Free to GOA members https://events.goa.org/goals/   If you were at GunCon and are attending GOALS. Don't forget to get some pics with the cast to claim your free shirt.   Guest: Jon Patton - The Gun Collective https://www.instagram.com/theguncollective/?hl=en @theguncollective   Gear Chat Nick - MP5 News Drop MP5 update Pew Deals   Bullet Points Shawn - Weekly P320 Updates P320 Weekly changes FFL NCIC gun lookup Gun Fights Step right up for "Gun Fights," the high-octane segment hosted by Nick Lynch, where our cast members go head-to-head in a game show-style showdown! Each contestant tries to prove their gun knowledge dominance. It's a wild ride of bids, bluffs, and banter—who will come out on top? Tune in to find out! WLS is Lifestyle GunCon Fun GunCon Aaron's Alley Justices are getting old, what needs to be done Clarence Thomas: 75  Samuel Alito: 73  Sonia Sotomayor: 69  John Roberts: 69  Elena Kagan: 63  Brett Kavanaugh: 58  Neil Gorsuch: 56  Ketanji Brown Jackson: 53  Amy Coney Barrett: 52 Going Ballistic Gun Rights: No ifs, ands, or buts Contrast this The Right to Bear Laughs With this Guns in the Capitol? Sure! New Proposal Would Permit Concealed Carry In Michigan State Capitol Building Silencer Showdown: ATF vs. Truth Why Silencer Shop Is Suing the ATF and DOJ Over the NFA Gun Control Hysteria: Here We Go Again That Evil AR-15 Again: Media Spins Rifles, Suppressors, and the Shane Tamura Shooting Reviews ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - EH EYE  “The only gun podcast that could survive the Dungeon.” Welcome to We Like Shooting, reimagined as if the hosts were thrown into the blood-soaked arenas of the Dungeon Crawler Carl universe and somehow made it funnier, louder, and deadlier.    Aaron steps into the shoes of Mordecai, always plotting and sometimes prepared. He has an opinion on everything, though nobody's really listening, and he probably carries a cursed artifact nobody wants to touch. Shawn is Carl, the reluctant, self important hero who's just trying to keep the podcast from collapsing under its own insanity plus, he loves walking around with no pants on. Nick perfectly fits Princess Donut, setting fashion trends for both guns and camouflage patterns that Shawn will obviously follow. He believes a rifle should both slay and match your entire loadout. Jeremy is Samantha, bringing pure chaos, carnage, and a voice so loud it could punch through walls. Also, his mouth is almost always open like a sex doll. And Savage1r is our Prepotente, the all-knowing, no-nonsense goat who drops stats and laws while silently judging everyone and laughing at his own jokes. Each episode is a wild mix of honest firearm talk, tactical insight, ridiculous banter, and just the right amount of madness. You'll get gear reviews, heated debates, political hot takes, and the kind of chemistry only a group this dysfunctional could create. If you want a podcast that's smart, unfiltered, and unapologetically fun, We Like Shooting might just be the only gun show crazy enough to survive the Dungeon and make you laugh the whole way through. It's smart. It's unhinged. It's the most fun you'll have while learning about firearms and the only podcast where a talking goat might bore you to death.   ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - from Lo Hung-Huang - Five stars Five stars, Wow he put five stars again.

In 1985, Charles McCrory found his wife, Julie Bonds, brutally murdered in their Andalusia, Alabama, home. Just two small marks on her arm—misrepresented in court as a definitive “bite mark”—became the sole forensic evidence used to convict him for her murder.A forensic odontologist, famed for testifying at Ted Bundy's trial, claimed the impressions matched McCrory's like a fingerprint. Yet decades later, that same expert fully recanted the testimony, acknowledging the scientific consensus now recognises bite mark evidence as unreliable “junk science”.With no blood, no DNA, and hair in the victim's hand that didn't match McCrory's, his conviction rested entirely on this flawed forensic interpretation. Over 40 years later, even as two independent forensic dentists testified that the so called bite mark was never human, Alabama courts repeatedly denied him a new trial, judging that his lengthy imprisonment still stood, and that procedural hurdles outweighed modern scienceIn July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. Justice Sotomayor warned that wrongful convictions like his, based on “faulty science,” are startlingly common and urged state and federal lawmakers to enact stronger safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1985, Charles McCrory found his wife, Julie Bonds, brutally murdered in their Andalusia, Alabama, home. Just two small marks on her arm—misrepresented in court as a definitive “bite mark”—became the sole forensic evidence used to convict him for her murder.A forensic odontologist, famed for testifying at Ted Bundy's trial, claimed the impressions matched McCrory's like a fingerprint. Yet decades later, that same expert fully recanted the testimony, acknowledging the scientific consensus now recognises bite mark evidence as unreliable “junk science”.With no blood, no DNA, and hair in the victim's hand that didn't match McCrory's, his conviction rested entirely on this flawed forensic interpretation. Over 40 years later, even as two independent forensic dentists testified that the so called bite mark was never human, Alabama courts repeatedly denied him a new trial, judging that his lengthy imprisonment still stood, and that procedural hurdles outweighed modern scienceIn July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. Justice Sotomayor warned that wrongful convictions like his, based on “faulty science,” are startlingly common and urged state and federal lawmakers to enact stronger safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1985, Charles McCrory found his wife, Julie Bonds, brutally murdered in their Andalusia, Alabama, home. Just two small marks on her arm—misrepresented in court as a definitive “bite mark”—became the sole forensic evidence used to convict him for her murder.A forensic odontologist, famed for testifying at Ted Bundy's trial, claimed the impressions matched McCrory's like a fingerprint. Yet decades later, that same expert fully recanted the testimony, acknowledging the scientific consensus now recognises bite mark evidence as unreliable “junk science”.With no blood, no DNA, and hair in the victim's hand that didn't match McCrory's, his conviction rested entirely on this flawed forensic interpretation. Over 40 years later, even as two independent forensic dentists testified that the so called bite mark was never human, Alabama courts repeatedly denied him a new trial, judging that his lengthy imprisonment still stood, and that procedural hurdles outweighed modern scienceIn July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. Justice Sotomayor warned that wrongful convictions like his, based on “faulty science,” are startlingly common and urged state and federal lawmakers to enact stronger safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1985, Charles McCrory found his wife, Julie Bonds, brutally murdered in their Andalusia, Alabama, home. Just two small marks on her arm—misrepresented in court as a definitive “bite mark”—became the sole forensic evidence used to convict him for her murder.A forensic odontologist, famed for testifying at Ted Bundy's trial, claimed the impressions matched McCrory's like a fingerprint. Yet decades later, that same expert fully recanted the testimony, acknowledging the scientific consensus now recognises bite mark evidence as unreliable “junk science”.With no blood, no DNA, and hair in the victim's hand that didn't match McCrory's, his conviction rested entirely on this flawed forensic interpretation. Over 40 years later, even as two independent forensic dentists testified that the so called bite mark was never human, Alabama courts repeatedly denied him a new trial, judging that his lengthy imprisonment still stood, and that procedural hurdles outweighed modern scienceIn July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. Justice Sotomayor warned that wrongful convictions like his, based on “faulty science,” are startlingly common and urged state and federal lawmakers to enact stronger safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr hosts #SistersInLaw to expose the malfeasance at the DOJ by highlighting questionable firings and sentencing, including the killer of Breonna Taylor and Maurene Comey.  Then, the #Sisters call out the SCOTUS for initiating the death of the Department of Education with their recent ruling, break down Justice Sotomayor's dissent, and what the future of our children's schooling might look like.  They also keep us informed about the latest developments in the Epstein drama and examine how the controversy could impact our politics.   Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt & Mini Tote at politicon.com/merch #SistersInLaw Spin-off Shows Are Here! Check out Jill's New Politicon YouTube Show: Just The Facts Check out Kim's New Politicon Podcast: Justice By Design Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on Bluesky Get Barb's book, Attack From Within, coming out in paperback! Joyce's new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, is now available for pre-order!  Get your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.  Mentioned By The #Sisters SOTOMAYOR'S DISSENT- LINDA M C MAHON, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL. v. NEW YORK, ET AL. From Joyce's Substack - Following Orders Support This Week's Sponsors Flamingo: Keep smooth this summer with Flamingo, the razor built for your body and mind. Get 25% off your first order at shopflamingo.com/sisters with code: SIL Thrive Causemetics: Get the Liquid Lash Extensions Mascara and a mini-sized Brilliant Eye Brightener at a special set price with free shipping
available when you go to thrivecausemetics.com/sisters Osea Malibu: Get 10% off your order of clean beauty products from OSEA Malibu when you go to oseamalibu.com and use promo code: SISTERS10 Blueland: For 15% off your order of green cleaning products, go to blueland.com/sisters Get More From The #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack | Author of “Giving Up Is Unforgiveable” Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTube Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | The Gavel Newsletter | Justice By Design Podcast Barb McQuade: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America

Only Congress can create or close a government agency like the Department of Education. However, the six right-wing Supreme Court Justices ruled that Trump can continue his efforts to close the Department of Education even though it clearly violates the doctrine of separation of powers.Justice Sotomayor authored a powerful and persuasive dissenting opinion, exposing the illegality and unconstitutionality of what Trump is doing, and highlighting the danger to American democracy when the Supreme Court condones Trump's lawlessness.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Only Congress can create or close a government agency like the Department of Education. However, the six right-wing Supreme Court Justices ruled that Trump can continue his efforts to close the Department of Education even though it clearly violates the doctrine of separation of powers.Justice Sotomayor authored a powerful and persuasive dissenting opinion, exposing the illegality and unconstitutionality of what Trump is doing, and highlighting the danger to American democracy when the Supreme Court condones Trump's lawlessness.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

President Trump has scored another YUGE WIN with SCOTUS, once again over the cascading tears of a 19-page Justice Sonya “wise Latina” Sotomayor dissent, which was joined b y the usual cabal of Justice Elena “never married, never kids” Kagan and Justice Kentaji “I'm not a biologist, how would I know what a woman is” Jackson. In this case SCOTUS removal of this injunction will allow Trump to move forward with firing nearly 1,400 employees of the Department of Education, the weapon of ideological brainwashing and indoctrination that the Progressive Fascists have been wielding over America's school children for decades. In contrast to Sotomayor's overwrought reason-free 19-page dissent drowning in estrogenic hysteria, the six justices majority felt the legal rationale for their decision to once again overturn yet another anti-democratic injunction ordered by an unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior, federal district trial court judge was so obvious that it required neither explanation nor signature. Indeed, the majority delivered this additional win for the Article II Executive Branch President in a SINGLE SENTENCE knock-out blow to the Progressive Fascist regime desperate to maintain its ideological control over America's next generation.The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” a new poll shows that a majority of Americans don't believe the government's explanation of Jeffrey Epstein's death. Even the Trump administration is now trying to cover it up, and Americans aren't buying it. Then, one of Joe Biden's doctors from his time as president has pleaded the Fifth in a congressional hearing when asked if he knew about Biden's mental decline. Next, the Supreme Court justices are infighting after Justice Sonia Sotomayor was left confused by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent. Finally, former staff members for New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani are not the most moral of individuals.   Today's Guests: Sara is joined by Jason Buttrill, head writer and chief researcher for Glenn Beck, and Blaze News editor in chief Matthew Peterson.   Today's Sponsors:   Birch Gold: Just text my name, SARA, to the number 989898, and Birch Gold will send you a FREE info kit on gold.   CraftCo. Flying Ace Spirits: Buy online at http://www.flyingacespirits.com and use code BLAZE for free shipping. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're breaking down the latest Epstein client list rumors—and why Pam Bondi is suddenly in the hot seat. Meanwhile, Elon Musk drops Steve Bannon's name into the scandal, raising major questions about who's really in those files.Then:*Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson votes NO on workforce cuts—and Sotomayor roasts her on the record*Greta Thunberg heads back to Gaza for another round of performative activism*James Comey is under investigation!*Kash Patel weighs in on the deep state chaosPlus: Trump shuts down amnesty rumors and CNN finally admits Americans want deportationsSUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!Most of us are too busy to get all our fruits and veggies every day. Field of Greens makes it simple. Use code CHICKS at https://FOGChicks.com to save 20% on your first order plus free shipping.Support American filmmakers and American values by joining the Angel Studios Guild at https://Angel.com/chicksDonate $20 to support women's success and receive the book, A Woman's Guide, Seven Rules for Success in Business and Life, from Concerned Women for America. Visit https://ConcernedWomen.org/Chicks

Moving at almost the speed of light and following Justice Sotomayor's “direction”, public interest groups litigating to protect Birthright Citizenship have just hours after the Supreme Court ruled against them, filed a new motion for class action certification and for temporary injunction with a Maryland federal judge. Michael Popok explains how this is exactly what Justice Sotomayor called for in her dissent on Friday, and sets up a battle over the summer in the Supreme Court over whether Birthright Citizenship enshrined in the 14th Amendment survives. Check out the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – The ruling was 6–3, with the three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissenting in favor of the School Board having more control over what children are learning than parents. Indeed, parents have ALL of the power when it comes to their children's education. Clearly, Sotomayor does not know what the “essence of public education” is...

Leah, Melissa and Kate roll up their sleeves and unpack last Friday's huge day at the Court, starting with Mahmoud v. Taylor, the case that tested Sam Alito's ability to comprehend picture books. They also break down the outcomes of cases involving age verification for adult entertainment and the nondelegation doctrine. If you missed last Friday's emergency episode on the birthright citizenship case, you can find it here. Hosts' favorite things:Melissa: Jackson and Sotomayor dissents (Mahmoud v. Taylor, Trump v. CASA, Inc.); Outrageous (BritBox); Dream Count, Chimamanda Ngozi AdichieKate: Green-Wood Cemetery's Living Dead, Paige Williams (New Yorker); Dying for Sex (FX on Hulu); Chris Hayes' lecture at the Chautauqua InstitutionLeah: KBJ and Sotomayor dissents; The 21 Best Croissants in New York City Right Now, Mahira Rivers (NYT);  YELLOW, Washington, D.C. Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Tonight on The Last Word: The Supreme Court gives Donald Trump even more power one year after the immunity ruling. Also, Trump family business interests raise ethical concerns. Plus, Trump wields tariffs to stop Canada taxes on tech giants. And a Republican lawmaker in a red state says that state won't survive the Trump budget bill. Laurence Tribe, Tim O'Brien, Rep. Chris Pappas, Mini Timmaraju, and Rep. Kelly Morrison join Ali Velshi.

Moving at almost the speed of light and following Justice Sotomayor's “direction”, public interest groups litigating to protect Birthright Citizenship have just hours after the Supreme Court ruled against them, filed a new motion for class action certification and for temporary injunction with a Maryland federal judge. Michael Popok explains how this is exactly what Justice Sotomayor called for in her dissent on Friday, and sets up a battle over the summer in the Supreme Court over whether Birthright Citizenship enshrined in the 14th Amendment survives. Check out the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Did Justice Sotomayor just outfox the Trump DOJ by sending out an “invitation” to a Massachusetts federal judge to find a way to circumvent a recent Supreme Court ruling to make sure that deportees obtain due process before being sent to countries like South Sudan or Libya? Michael Popok takes a close look at Sotomayor's dissent, the next steps taken by Judge Murphy to tell the Trump Administration that the Court's ruling doesn't stop his other “remedial” orders, and Trump's DOJ rushing to the Court and asking for a “clarification” because the Judge is being mean and “defiant.” For their buy 1 get 1 50% off deal, head to https://3DayBlinds.com/LEGALAF Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a 6-3 decision that Justice Sotomayor calls an “abuse of power” by the Supreme Court which turns the nature of Due Process on its head, and rewards the Trump Administration's flagrant violation of federal court orders, the Supreme Court just ruled that human beings without due process or even limited notice can be deported to dangerous countries they are not even from, like South Sudan and Libya. Michael Popok explains how the MAGA majority of the Court just rewarded Trump's bad behavior. Square: Get up to $200 off Square hardware when you sign up at https://square.com/go/legalaf! #squarepod Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is part of ⁠Opinionpalooza⁠, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. The best way to support our work is by joining ⁠Slate Plus⁠. (If you are already a member, consider a ⁠donation⁠ or ⁠merch⁠!)Also! Sign up for ⁠Slate's Legal Brief:⁠ the latest coverage of the courts and the law straight to your inbox. Delivered every Tuesday. Dahlia Lithwick hosts an 'Opinionpalooza' special of Amicus, covering Thursday's decisions from the Supreme Court. She and Mark Joseph Stern dive into Ames vs. Ohio Youth Department, discussing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion on reverse discrimination, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's refreshing nod to the establishment clause in the Catholic Charities case, and Justice Kagan's narrow decision in Mexico's lawsuit against US gun sellers; a decision that was not the win the gun lobby hoped for. Together, they reveal the strategy emerging from the court's liberals this term. The episode wraps up with a deep dive into an uptick in dismissed cases and its potential link to audacious former Supreme Court clerks. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices