Podcast appearances and mentions of ted olson

Dr. William Turner and Dr. Ted Olson talk to Geonoah Davis and Kelly Thompson, two artists whose hip-hop sounds are expanding traditional ideas about music in Appalachia. Borrowing from a generations-old African American heritage of spoken word expression, rap and hip-hop echo a long narrative tradition of African American cultural survival against all odds. These original historical elements are deeply rooted in the fabric of Appalachia, blending into the backdrop of the region's musical character yet revived and brought forward again by these fresh creative talents with their contemporary styles.Geonoah Davis, known by the artistic name geonovah, was born and raised in Big Stone Gap, VA, in the heart of Appalachia's coal and iron industry. He wasn't the first rapper in his family, and early collaborations with his cousin RKMITCH allowed him to develop his powers of poetry into an artistry for hip-hop lyric and verse. Kelly Thompson, a.k.a Pookie, also hails from Big Stone Gap but spent his early childhood in North Carolina. Friends since middle school, he and Geonoah have made music together for many years—Kelly creating beats and Geonoah writing lyrics. Kelly evolved his talents to include music production, learning from local producers in his area.Dr. William Turner is a long-time African American studies scholar and retired Distinguished Professor of Appalachian Studies and Regional Ambassador from Berea College. He was also a research assistant to Roots author Alex Haley and co-editor of the groundbreaking Blacks in Appalachia. In 2021, Turner received Western Carolina University's individual Mountain Heritage Award in recognition of his outstanding contributions to Southern Appalachian studies. His memoir called The Harlan Renaissance, available from West Virginia University Press, was awarded the prestigious Weatherford Award at the 2022 Appalachian Studies Association Conference.Dr. Ted Olson is a music historian and professor of Appalachian Studies at East Tennessee State University. He is the author of many books, articles, reviews, encyclopedia entries, and oral histories. Olson has produced and compiled a number of documentary albums of traditional Appalachian music including On Top of Old Smoky and Big Bend Killing, both from Smokies Life. His work has received a number of awards, including nine Grammy nominations. The East Tennessee Historical Society honored Olson with its Ramsey Award for Lifetime Achievement in 2021.Music featured includes:1.    “John Henry” performed by Amythyst Kiah and Roy Andrade from GSMA's (now Smokies Life's) album Big Bend Killing2.    “Takin' Me Over” performed by geonovah for the album No Options: Hip-Hop in Appalachia, used courtesy of June Appal Recordings3.    “S&S” performed by geonovah for the album No Options: Hip-Hop in Appalachia, used courtesy of June Appal Recordings4.    “Black Lives Never Mattered” by RKMITCH featuring geonovah, vocals mixed by Pookie 

This month we will host an Outbeat Extra edition of Outbeat News In Depth featuring a tribute to Ted Olson, one of the two attorneys who took on Proposition 8 and restored marriage equality here in California. Mr. Olson passed away in November. We will air an interview we did … Continue reading → The post Show Notes – Dec. 29, 2024 appeared first on Outbeat Radio News.

 John is joined by one of the most famous litigators in the world, David Boies, Chairman and Founding Partner of Boies Schiller Flexner.  They discuss David's career, unique aspects of trial work, and the challenges of transitioning leadership in law firms.  David describes his early years at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP, where he became a partner in 1972, and his founding of Boies Schiller in 1997.  He candidly discusses the aging process, especially the balance that exists between somewhat diminishing memory and the ever-improving judgment that comes with experience.  Despite plans to step down as Chairman of his firm at the end of the year, David remains engaged in high-stakes litigation, particularly cases which may improve society, such as marriage equality and sex trafficking litigation.   John and David also discuss trial advocacy.  David believes that trials are both morality plays and peculiar searches for truth, shaped by a unique decision-making process that excludes jurors with specialized knowledge and forbids them from seeking knowledge in the ways they are accustomed to.  They also discuss the unique pressures on courtroom lawyers, including the need to say everything right in real time, having a professional constantly trying to make you look bad, a jury that studies everything you say or do, and clients watching whose fortune or liberty depends on your performance.  John and David also discuss the business of law, critiquing the hourly billing model and reflecting on the challenges of aligning client and firm interests in alternative fee arrangements.  They agree that legal practice, while demanding, remains intellectually and personally rewarding.  David also offers his thoughts on his late friend and sometimes adversary Ted Olson, whose integrity, warmth, and professionalism left a lasting impact.  Finally, John and David discuss the possibility of a follow-up to David's book Courting Justice, which chronicled significant cases from his career in light of the major cases he has had in the years since the book was published.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, one of the greatest Supreme Court litigators ever has passed away – Ted Olson. He argued Bush vs Gore 2000 recount case. If he believed something needed to be defended, he, did it. Rest in Peace. Later, the Democrats are trying to steal the Senate race in Pennsylvania and not one media outlet will talk about accepting the results of an election. Marc Elias is trying to steal this seat, just like he did with Al Franken in Minnesota. Also, President-Elect Trump needs to succeed. His appointments are there to do what Trump needs them to do, and he deserves our full support for all his appointees. The media will try to reverse course of the election by trying to kneecap Trump. Afterward, the culprit who leaked Israel's military plans to attack Iran has been found. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

An anti-abortion legal activist starts using the federal courts to chip away at campaign finance restrictions, setting his sights on the Supreme Court. Indiana lawyer James Bopp Jr. engineers the Citizens United case and hand-tailors it for Justice Anthony Kennedy's storied swing vote — setting him up for an explosive 5-4 ruling that would devastate campaign finance law.Get Master Plan episodes early and ad-free by becoming a paid subscriber. Enjoy bonus episodes, exclusive content, and support this show. Visit masterplanpodcast.com. Master Plan Special: 50% off a Lever subscription! Access bonus episodes, articles, and more. Support independent journalism at LeverNews.com/50.

"No Options: Hip Hop in Appalachia" is a new compilation of original music by artists specifically from Appalachia. The project aims to break the stereotypes typically associated with an overlooked and misunderstood region of the country while also shedding a light on some of its rising and veteran artists. Producers Ted Olson and William H. Turner, executive producer JK Turner, and rapper/producer Monstalung talked with us about putting this project together, the history of Black music in the region and their album pick for this episode - "People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm" by A Tribe Called Quest. Stream and purchase "No Options" here: https://juneappalrecordings.bandcamp.com/album/no-options-hip-hop-in-appalachia-2

My guest this week is Ted Olson.Ted is Professor of Appalachian Studies at East Tennessee State University.  He's also written liner notes and essays for some wonderful projects, including “Doc Watson – Life's Work: A Retrospective,” and the fantastic  “Nothing But Green Willow: The Songs Of Jane Gentry and Mary Sands” by Martin Simpson & Thomm Jutz.Ted joins me to talk about three wonderful projects he worked on for Bear Family Records, celebrating three key recording sessions that took place in East Tennessee in the 1920s and '30s - The Bristol Sessions, The Johnson City Sessions and The Knoxville Sessions.Bear Family put out a multi-CD box set for each of these, which Ted did extensive research and  provided some wonderful essays and liner notes for. Each set is also distilled into a single CD release.We talk about why The 1927 Bristol Sessions, which brought The Carter Family and Jimmie Rogers to the attention of the world, came to be known as the 'big bang' of Country music, why that label doesn't sit quite right with Ted, how the sessions came about, what was happening in the world of commercial recording at the time and why the legacy of those recordings is so important, plus much, much more.It was a fascinating conversation and put those recordings in a whole new context for me, both helping me understand their importance, but also (thanks in part to the wonderful transfers and re-mastering, as well as the incredible liner notes) helping me realise there's just some great music in there too!You'll find the single CDs here:Bear Family CDsBristol SessionsJohnson City SessionsKnoxville Sessionsand the box sets here:Bear Family box setsBristol SessionsJohnson City SessionsKnoxville SessionsHappy picking!Matt Support the show===- Sign up to get updates on new episodes - Free fiddle tune chord sheets- Here's a list of all the Bluegrass Jam Along interviews- Follow Bluegrass Jam Along for regular updates: Instagram Facebook - Review us on Apple Podcasts

Months ago, I was asked to give a lecture at the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention. It was a surprising invitation for a number of reasons. First, I am not a lawyer. Second: I am not a member of the Federalist Society—the prominent conservative and libertarian legal organization. (If the name rings a bell it's probably because you've heard of it in the context of the hearings of any of the conservative justices who currently sit on the court.)  Third: If you look at the people who previously gave this particular lecture—Supreme Court Justices, Attorney Generals, people like Bill Barr, Don McGahn, and John Roberts—the idea that I would be on that list seemed nuts. But I accepted. Mostly because I was being asked to give the Barbara K. Olson lecture. Olson was 45 years old, a lawyer and a political commentator at the top of her game when she boarded American Airlines flight 77 on September 11, 2001. She was flying to Los Angeles that day so she could appear on Bill Maher's show Politically Incorrect, and because she had changed her flight to have a birthday dinner with her husband, Ted. Barbara was murdered along with 3,000 other Americans that day. She managed to summon the composure, courage and clarity to call her husband twice in those horrifying moments before the plane slammed into the Pentagon.  Her husband, Ted Olson, has among the most impressive resumes you'll find. But most important to me and my family: he argued in support of gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. I had many ideas for this lecture before October 7. But after the world-transforming events of that day, I felt there was only one thing to talk about: the fight for the West. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Half a million Northumbrians, the proud people of the English-Scottish border region, settled in the Appalachian mountains in the eighteenth century. And they left their mark in the song, speech and maybe even politics. Geordie culture: the often overlooked element in the forging of the American South. Adam talks to Dan Jackson, author of The Northumbrians: Northeast England and its People, and Ted Olson, Professor of Appalachian Studies at East Tennessee State University. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After a week with no electricity, Professors Vladeck and Chesney are back with the latest in national security law news.  Tune in for discussions of: the law (or lack thereof) when it comes to balloons, altitude, and aerial espionage sanctions on the Wagner Group and also on various Russians associated with ransomware FBI and DOJ disrupting the Hive ransomware group Majid Khan transferred from GTMO to ... Belize? Ted Olson on the military commissions process Finally, you'll want to watch SNL's "HBO Mario Kart": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiIRlg4Xr5w

Our friend Ted Olson "stopped by" the TBC studio to update us on his book "Feel Good About Selling" which published in the Fall of 2022.   Sales managers would do well to adopt Ted's approach and keep themselves out of the SalesBosshole® Zone.   It's how selling should have been done all along - and it's not too late to apply these proven principles.Click HERE for Ted's LinkedIn profileClick HERE to purchase a copy of Ted's book Feel Good About SellingRelated TBC episodes:Jim Speredelozzi - Experience as a NegativeDon't Bring Him BackKaren and John - The Hero and the GuideHave a BOSSHOLE STORY of your own?  Click HERE to inquire about being on the podcast!HERE ARE MORE RESOURCES FROM REAL GOOD VENTURES:Never miss a good opportunity to learn from a bad boss...Click HERE to get your very own Reference Profile.  We use The Predictive Index as our analytics platform so you know it's validated and reliable.  Your Reference Profile informs you of your needs, behaviors, and the nuances of what we call your Behavioral DNA.  It also explains your work style, your strengths, and even the common traps in which you may find yourself.  It's a great tool to share with friends, family, and co-workers.Follow us on Twitter HERE and make sure to share with your network!Provide your feedback HERE, please!  We love to hear from our listeners and welcome your thoughts and ideas about how to improve the podcast and even suggest topics and ideas for future episodes.Visit us at www.realgoodventures.com.  We are a Talent Optimization consultancy specializing in people and business execution analytics.  Real Good Ventures was founded by Sara Best and John Broer who are both Certified Talent Optimization Consultants with over 50 years of combined consulting and organizational performance experience.  Sara is also certified in EQi 2.0.  RGV is also a Certified Partner of Line-of-Sight, a powerful organizational health and execution platform.  RGV is known for its work in leadership development, executive coaching, and what we call organizational rebuild where we bring all our tools together to diagnose an organization's present state and how to grow toward a stronger future state.

My guest this week is Jack Hinshelwood.Jack is a guitarist, fiddler, singer and winner of the Knoxville World's Fair Guitar Championship, the Wayne Henderson Guitar Championship, and a two-time winner of the Galax Fiddler's Convention guitar contest.He joins me to chat about Doc at 100, a really special set of shows he's co-producing to celebrate what would have been Doc Watson's 100th birthday this year. The shows feature Doc's long time collaborators Jack Lawrence and T. Michael Coleman, plus guitar maker (and friend of Doc's) Wayne Henderson and co-producer Ted Olson, author of “Doc's World: Traditional Plus,” the book that accompanies the 4 CD compilation by Craft Records called Doc Watson, Life's Work: A RetrospectiveThere's a list of the shows here, including a very special show on Doc's actual birthday, where Doc at 100 guests at a Billy Strings show, alongside Bryan Sutton and Molly Tuttle. More shows will be added through the year so keep checking back to see if they're headed your way.We also chat about Jack's record 50 Years in the Making and play a track from it at the end.I've got some more exciting news to share about the 100th anniversary of Doc's birthday - more on that soon....===- Free fiddle tune chord sheets- Here's a list of all the Bluegrass Jam Along interviews- Follow Bluegrass Jam Along for regular updates: Instagram Facebook - Review us on Apple Podcasts

If you enjoyed my very first blog, Underneath Their Robes (2004-2006)—which I wrote under a pseudonym while working as a federal prosecutor, pretending to be a female associate in Biglaw obsessed with federal judges and fashion—then you'll enjoy this latest podcast episode. How many podcasts combine analysis of Supreme Court oral arguments with discussion of pumps versus cowboy boots versus Mary Janes? (For the record, my guest made the first reference to shoes; I didn't go there unprompted.)My latest guest is—of course—the inimitable Lisa Blatt, chair of the Supreme Court and appellate practice at Williams & Connolly, the legendary litigation firm. Lisa needs no introduction to Original Jurisdiction devotees, so I'll mention just two distinctions. First, Lisa has argued 43 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, more than any other woman in history. Second, she has won 37 of those 43 cases (86 percent), which makes her one of the most consistently victorious SCOTUS advocates. (Trivia question: is there a Supreme Court lawyer currently practicing who has argued that many cases before the high court with that high a win percentage?)In our ebullient and enjoyable interview, Lisa and I covered her special relationship with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for whom she clerked; how she rose to the top of the male-dominated Supreme Court bar, as a woman from Texas who “didn't go to a fancy law school”; how she developed her distinctive, famously unfiltered style of oral argument; and why she prefers cowboy boots over stiletto heels. I hope you have as much fun listening to this episode as Lisa and I had recording it.Show Notes:* Lisa Blatt bio, Williams & Connolly LLP* Reflections of a Lady Lawyer, Texas Law Review* Lisa S. Blatt: Cases argued, OyezPrefer reading to listening? A transcript of the entire episode appears below (although you really should listen to this one, since as is the case with her SCOTUS arguments, a transcript doesn't do Lisa justice).Two quick notes:* This transcript has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter meaning, e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning (although I've done less clean-up than usual to better preserve the flavor of our fabulous and freewheeling conversation).* Because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email. To view the entire post, simply click on "View entire message" in your email app.David Lat: Hello, and welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to by visiting davidlat.substack.com.You're listening to the seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Wednesday, November 30. My normal schedule is to post episodes every other Wednesday.I must confess, with all due respect to my past guests, that this episode might be the most fun one yet—and I owe it all to my guest. Lawyers are known for being risk-averse and many carry that over into their interviews, not wanting to say anything that might get them in trouble or rub someone the wrong way. That's definitely not true of my latest guest, who's known for her refreshing candor, whether you're chatting with her at a cocktail party or whether she's arguing before the United States Supreme Court.Lisa Blatt serves as Chair of Williams & Connolly's Supreme Court and appellate practice. She has argued 43 cases before the Supreme Court, more than any other woman in history. And she has prevailed in 37 of those 43 cases, giving her a win percentage of 86 percent—which has to be one of the highest around, at least among advocates who have argued before the Court as often as she has. She has won numerous awards, including Litigator of the Year from the American Lawyer in 2021.Lisa graduated from the University of Texas for both college and law school, summa cum laude both times. She clerked for then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the D.C. Circuit and then joined Williams & Connolly as an associate. After government service, at the Department of Energy and then the Office of the Solicitor General, where she worked for 13 years, Lisa returned to private practice, and in 2019, she came full circle by returning to Williams & Connolly.In our lively and wide-ranging conversation, Lisa and I discussed her unique relationship with the late Justice Ginsburg, for whom she clerked; her distinctive approach to Supreme Court oral advocacy, including her thoughts on trying humor with the justices; why she loves coaching debate; and why she thinks lawyers should not be passionate about their work.Without further ado, here's my interview of Lisa Blatt.DL: Lisa, thank you so much for joining me. I'm honored to have you on the podcast.Lisa Blatt: Well, thank you. I am honored to be here.DL: So if I had to guess where you're from based on meeting you at a cocktail party or hearing you argue before the Court, I would've guessed you're one of us, a New Yorker or a Northeasterner. But you're from Texas.LB: That's right. Both of my parents are from New York, and I grew up listening to the word “y'all” with a very thick New York accent, so everyone assumes I'm from New York. But no, I was born and raised in Texas, West Texas. I moved all over Texas, UT for undergrad and law school, and a lot of my personality is because I'm from Texas. And I think I'm on my 12th pair of cowboy boots?DL: Oh wow, okay!LB: I'm definitely a Texan. Part of the way I talk just is because my parents are both from New York.DL: That makes sense. And you have a kind of candor, although I guess Texans are pretty candid too, aren't they?LB: I don't think my candor comes from being from Texas! I don't know where that comes from, actually—no one in my family's like that.DL: Fair enough. So going to your upbringing in Texas, were there any hints that you might become a lawyer? I believe your parents were not lawyers.LB: Right. Dad was a software engineer, Mom a stay-home mom until she became a psychologist. But no, I think it was Thurgood Marshall, something about his story of Brown—I still get sort of teary when I think about it—something about his story of what he did in Brown v. Board of Education, being the lawyer, the advocate, not the justice. I just wanted to be a lawyer and I did debate, speech and debate starting maybe in seventh grade, I was always very into debate and just knew that I wanted to go to law school.DL: What events did you do in speech and debate?LB: Now it's embarrassing, but policy debate, which is all that fast talking, and I had to unlearn that many years later. But yeah, I did policy debate and I spent many years coaching debate, so I do love the art of advocacy and argumentation and trying to persuade someone.DL: I read in one of your profiles or interviews that you do coach or did coach debate. What was that like for you? It seems like you're very competitive about coaching debate?LB: No, actually that's not right. I'm very passionate about coaching debate, and I feel very strongly about coaching; it's what I would definitely do if I wasn't a lawyer, and I feel very passionate about helping children and kids. But I don't think it's about winning—and that's one of the things you have to teach kids, because they just want a trophy. So much in life when it comes to competition and jobs is arbitrary and capricious. One of the things that is so important for us, even adults, to understand is that some stuff is out of our control. If I can just teach one child how to stand up straight and feel good about an argument, then that's a home run. So I love everything about coaching debate.Also, the different perspective was just a huge thing, getting a bunch of kids in a room. I've taught middle-school debate and high-school debate, and I would say my favorite was middle school because they're not yet completely sold on their politics and ideology, and trying to just get them to open up about things like background checks or hate speech or should dodgeball be banned in schools because it's violent. Just anything, any topic—nowadays not all topics are as safe as others, but just lots of fun topics—which tastes better, Coke or Pepsi, anything that you can just form an argument about and how to organize your responses.Look how excited I get! Just the notion of being able to teach this in a way that is helpful, especially for women, and a lot of kids are very insecure at this age, and everything about trying to show them that they can be confident is just the best thing in the whole world.DL: Speech and debate was huge for me in that respect. I was a very nerdy kid, very insecure, but when I found something and I enjoyed it, and I was good at it, it was a big boost for my confidence. So your husband's a lawyer, you're a lawyer, I believe you have two kids—are either of them into speech and debate?LB: One's in law school, they both did debate, and the other one's just applying and now getting into law school. So we're going to be Blatt & Associates, or Blatt Blatt Blatt & Blatt. David, my husband, no debate, he finds it completely foreign, but both Daniel and Rachel did debate.DL: Excellent. So in doing my research, I did come across your wedding announcement when you and David got married. I'm curious: did you give much thought to the whole “take his name or not take his name” thing?LB: My maiden name is Schiavo, so I was so eager, I would've married anybody with any last name—as soon as somebody gave me a proposal, the answer was yes. So yes, I gave a lot of thought to taking his last name. Everyone mispronounced Schiavo. Actually its direct translation is “slave” in Italian. So I was happy to [take his name], I happen to love Blatt, which rhymes with your last name. It's so great.DL: It's very easy to spell. The only issue is one or two t's, but absolutely.LB: I'm actually fine with people—a lot of people still know me as Lisa Schiavo, and that's fine too—but I like being Lisa Blatt.DL: So as we talked about, you went to UT for college and law school, summa cum laude, did super well. And in some ways your first big break, I would say, was clerking for then-Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the D.C. Circuit. She was a great advocate and a great justice, but some say she wasn't warm and fuzzy with her clerks. But based on your great piece for the Texas Law Review—Reflections of a Lady Lawyer, which I'm going to put in the show notes—it sounds like you had a fairly close relationship with her?LB: Extremely, because I couldn't talk about the law with her! I'm being completely serious. Both my co-clerks were absolutely brilliant people from Harvard, on the Harvard Law Review, but that was just never going to go anywhere with me, to talk with her about the law. And so I'm probably one of her few clerks where it was shoes, jewelry, or clothes. I could not keep up with her, and we talked about fashion.When it was one of her huge anniversaries, it may have been her tenth year on the Court, twenty years on the bench, there were only two people, maybe three people who gave a toast, and I was one of them. And everyone talked about all her this, that, and the other thing, legal giant—and I spent the whole time roasting her about how skinny she was and all her jewelry and how she was an airhead, and she was cracking up. But she liked people who made her laugh, and I think I made her laugh.DL: That makes perfect sense. Look at [her late husband] Marty, look at [her good friend] Justice Scalia, and you. She was somewhat reserved or introverted, but she was drawn to people who could bring her out.LB: She's so hard to talk to about… I just couldn't talk to her about the law, and I was probably her least productive and least intelligent clerk. I remembered at this toast I did for her, I showed everyone the bench memo I did for her, it was a made-up thing, but she took only the caption—a draft opinion, I drafted the opinion, and she cut out the caption and used that for the opinion. It's true, it was a true story, but I did it on a big blowup poster and it was very funny. And I was also her first and last clerk from University of Texas, because she's such a snob, a super school snob….DL: That is true. Yeah….LB: Some of them are very, very specific about their Ivy League schools. But I loved her, and I do think it was a different relationship than she had with other clerks. Very different.DL: That makes perfect sense. You mentioned you both were into or bonded over fashion. Did you have similar or different styles?LB: No, she was so weird! She would just—come on, she wore all those caftans, at least back in when she was on the D.C. Circuit. Actually, now I think I dress like her because I love bright colors, and she definitely is where I got my “you know what, just wear it, own it.” Because she would show up in the strangest outfits and she just like looked very happy and I thought, “Wow, I wanna be her, she's beautiful.” She just loved life and travel and clothes. She definitely had a unique clothing style. I have a bunch of Mary Jane shoes that I have now after she passed away that I call my “RBG shoes.”DL: Oh, interesting…. Mary Janes, and cowboy boots. I would've thought you would go for some pumps, with three- or four-inch heels or something?LB: I'm so tall, I can't do it. No, I can't do heels, really. Cowboy boots are my thing.DL: Okay, fair enough. So turning to what you're most well-known for, arguing before the Supreme Court, I believe you have argued more Supreme Court cases than any woman in history. You noted that in your Texas Law Review piece, but I noticed that on your Williams and Connolly bio, it doesn't say that. Was that intentional? Do you want to be known as a Supreme Court advocate and not a female Supreme Court advocate?LB: Uh, no. How about a “female Jewish funny old-lady Supreme Court advocate”? No, I didn't even know that, David. I guess I could put [it] on my website. I don't know if anyone cares, so, no intentionality, no, no intentionality at all. I am very proud of the fact that I have more arguments than any woman in history, but I expect and hope to see other women pass me up very shortly, and I assume they will.DL: Do you happen to know who would be number two?LB: Well, I'm hoping it'll be Elizabeth Prelogar when she gets out of the SG's office.DL: That's right, that's right. She is racking up a lot of arguments.LB: And she's gloriously fantastic.DL: She's amazing.LB: She's amazing. But there are plenty of women out there. Well, [my partner] Sarah Harris, my right-hand person, she's far more talented than I am. Because I'm a little bit different than other people, I hope that my style doesn't necessarily rub off, but I hope that what rubs off on people is that somebody who didn't go to Yale or Harvard and who lacked a lot of self-confidence and wasn't really groomed for anything can just do well. I was incredibly insecure for so much of my professional life. And so I very much want to be a model for people.DL: And you write about that very eloquently in your Texas Law Review essay, which again, I really commend to people.I'm curious, your Williams & Connolly bio does note that you've argued 43 cases before the Court, and you've won 37. And as I recall, didn't you have a very long win streak before you notched that first loss?LB: Yeah, I was in the twenties, and Ted Olson gave me a case to lose. Yeah!DL: And let me ask—are you the “winningest” Supreme Court advocate with a certain number of arguments below your belt, like 25 or 30 or 40? Your win percentage is something like 90 percent, 88 percent, something like that.LB: I don't know….DL: One thing that's interesting about the Supreme Court, and I think you alluded to this earlier—you said so much of life is arbitrary and capricious and luck, and I would argue that despite your amazing talents as a Supreme Court litigator, so many Supreme Court cases are decided based on political or jurisprudential or other factors independent of the argument style. How important would you say briefing and argument are? I know this is a very vague question….LB: I'll break it down two ways. I disagree on the jurisprudential [point], except for abortion, guns, race, and religion. Everything else, I think, is open to grab, although you could make some points about statutory construction and administrative law—so you're increasingly more correct, but I still think that there are plenty of cases that are completely up for grabs on bankruptcy or even arbitration these days. Just random commercial cases or civil cases, I don't think it's that ideological. I will give you on—I don't think the Court needs to be briefed on how to rule in an abortion case, you're just completely right.Then there's oral argument, and whether that matters, and a lot of us who argue like to say it matters. At a minimum, I would say it matters in that you can lose a case at argument and you can go backwards. It's much harder to win a case at argument, but it's pretty easy to lose a lot of ground and lose a case at argument. And as you can tell now from the current format, the justices are just bursting with stamina in terms of how much they want to argue. It's like the cage has been opened, and I think they're going to go back to all-day argument soon.DL: Do you like the new approach?LB: How can you not?DL: I do, as a listener….LB: Because there's no time limit for them in the lightning round or whatever they call it—round robin, Justice Sotomayor just called it—and you can tell they're all sort of looking at each other like, “How much longer can I get away with?” The worst thing about the old style, where it was rapid fire and Justice Thomas was silent, is you just didn't learn that much about what their concerns were because it was so hard to get your point out, it was so hard to hear what every justice thinks. Now Justice Thomas is free and is so involved in argument, and all of them are, so you're just getting all of them now. The only problem with that is you're having nine conversations, so it's just turning into very long arguments. But the parties, who aren't lawyers, it's helpful for them to see the Court in action, so I like that, and for the public to see how hard they're working through the issues.DL: Absolutely—and I know this is a pending case, so we won't delve into the merits—but I would commend people to the argument in the Warhol case [Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith], which you and Roman Martinez and Yaira Dubin recently argued. It's a great case. It's super-interesting. The argument went on for quite some time, but you really do see the justices grappling with the issues in a very earnest and non-ideological way. It's a great argument.LB: One of the things I don't like talking about in argument is the law, so to me, those cases are the most fun, because you can talk about how the case matters in the real world, what it means to people, the public, the parties, and you're not so much talking about what some word in the U.S. Code means.DL: Exactly. That case covered everything from Darth Vader to Mondrian to The Jeffersons, and so it was a really fun case for folks to listen to.Turning to advocacy and your style of arguing before the Court, which we alluded to, Sarah Isgur of the Advisory Opinions podcast said that nobody should try to imitate Lisa Blatt, even though Sarah thinks you're an amazing advocate, nobody should try to imitate Lisa. And I agree that there's a sort of “don't try this at home, kids” quality to your argument. Would you say you have a distinct style of argument, and if so, how is it?LB: Well, it upsets me that so many people say don't try to emulate her because… it just upsets me to hear that. I'd like….DL: I would be flattered! I'd be like, I'm inimitable, I'm sui generis, you can't imitate me!LB: One of the things that you have to do when you're a Supreme Court advocate or any advocate is make sure everything you say you can back up. If somebody wants to say, “wait a minute, did you just say what you said,” you're going to go, “I absolutely said what I said, and I'll repeat it again,” and that has always been my philosophy.It's true I think some people think I maybe go right up to the edge, but I'm okay with that. Sometimes I say things and I'm like, oh my God, why did I say that? In the Romag case with Neal Katyal, that was definitely one of my more notable ones, where I said, “I think you might have to cut me off.” The Chief just looked at me like, “Are you crazy?”So I say things like that and I'm like, what? Or “I didn't go to a fancy law school,” and I'm like, well, why did I say that? So things like that, I'll regret saying, and you shouldn't say things like “I didn't go to a fancy law school,” so I would never recommend people repeat that. But I would think that lots of people make statements and arguments that they're like, I should have said it differently, so I don't know why I should be any different.What I guess is upsetting to me is my style, if it's unique, it's that I have this very strong view that truth is the best form of advocacy and for someone to have a different view—it's disturbing to me. Why would you not be incredibly honest and direct with the Court? That's all I have to say, and I think everyone would agree. I don't know whether it was Irv Gornstein or Michael Dreeben [who said it], but Paul Clement and I often talk about this, that oral argument is truth serum, so whatever someone tells you to do, what you think is really going to come out. I've tried to change my style, I would like to be different, but it's very hard for me to not be the way I am.DL: Well, let me give you some examples. I totally agree with you on the point about fidelity to the law and the facts, and I think that if someone were to compare you to Paul Clement, your former colleague in the SG's office, who would also be identified as one of the best Supreme Court litigators of all time….LB: Paul is the best. Let's just be clear.DL: Okay, well, fair enough….LB: Paul is magical in a completely different way. His magic is the way he engages with cases and doctrine, and I've never seen anything like itDL: What would you say is your special sauce or superpower?LB: I don't think I have one! I think, I'm not trying to be funny, but I think that they sometimes are laughing, like a fair amount of times are laughing. And so I don't know why that is, that they think it's funny, the things I say.DL: I think this is another aspect of your argument that I think people say don't try to imitate. Usually when people say, well, what are the rules of appellate or Supreme Court advocacy, they say, well, listen to the judges or justices, don't talk over them, really try to be responsive, [and] people also say generally don't try humor. But you do try humor, and it almost always works.LB: No, I don't try it, I don't try it! That's, no, you never should try humor! Absolutely. Never. Try. Humor. It would be a disaster. And can you imagine making a bad joke? That is the worst thing to do. Don't try humor. I think sometimes I say things…. I remember the first time I said something that got a hysterical laugh, it was an argument in the gas tank case [United States v. Flores-Montano], which is mentioned in the Guide for Counsel. Definitely considered, I know at least by Justice Ginsburg, it was one of her favorite arguments, and it was a glorious argument, but in the course of the argument, Justice Scalia said, I said something and he goes, “Is that public?” And I said, “I just made it public.” And they all just broke out laughing. And I'm like, I'm not trying to be funny, but sometimes that bluntness and directness, it's funny, but I'm not trying to be funny. Does that make sense?DL: Well, so when you made the funny quip in the Warhol argument about the airbrushed photos of Lisa Blatt, you were not trying to be funny? Because it was funny.LB: Nor was I trying to be funny when I said the court was “yakking.”DL: Yes. That was also great!LB: The minute that came out, I was like, ah, how do I take that back? And they thought it was hysterical, but I wasn't trying to be funny. Why would anybody say that? Intentionally?DL: Okay, okay, fair enough.LB: But, so, I think it's just quirky. I don't, maybe, I don't know what the word is. I don't know.DL: When people say, don't try to imitate you, I don't think they're saying anything about your fidelity to the facts or the law or the record. I think you and Paul are pretty much toe to toe on that. But you have very different styles. He's conversational and you are conversational, but you're much more… lively, no offense to Paul, you're more sort of… in your face, I guess? I don't know how to put it….LB: Oh, I don't know what I think of that. Paul is definitely just more eloquent and elegant and intellectual, and I'm just more, let's talk, let's roll up our sleeves.DL: And I think that would be your superpower. I think you have a way to just cut to the heart of the case, in a way, and to also play out the consequences. I know that we're deciding cases on the law, precedent, not policy, blah blah blah, but I think you're really great at unfolding [consequences]. I love the line you had in the B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District case about the cursing cheerleader, where you're saying near the end in your rebuttal, like, “judges, justices, don't do this!” in terms of setting forth a bad rule.LB: I said, “please don't do this to courts,” or “please don't do this to schools.” Yes, I said “please.” Okay. The minute I said “please,” it's like, I would highly recommend never saying, in any oral argument, “please.” But it did come out that way.DL: It was great!LB: Maybe it's just refreshing because nobody says “please.” Or I referred to North Korea and Russia. And so, but trust me, I am not trying to be entertaining because I strongly think that that is a disastrous move. You should never try to be that or try to be—you just can only be yourself.DL: Yes.LB: And so what you see at argument, I think with a lot of people is just someone's true self. And maybe it's because I didn't go to a fancy law school.DL: You mentioned in your Texas Law Review piece that it took you a while to learn to be yourself, that you tried on a couple of styles before settling on your current one?LB: Absolutely. Yes. That's why I feel the modeling and supporting younger people are extremely important. But how are you supposed to know this in your thirties? I didn't have the confidence and I hated everything about myself, so, yeah, I thought I would look at other, I guess, women and men and want to be like them. Maureen Mahoney, one of the best all-time advocates, everything about her is to die for. I couldn't be her if my life depended on it. And it was very hard for me to just accept the fact that I was never going to be that kind of lawyer or just always be a little different and not ever feel comfortable like in a suit, and just really…. I'm sure a lot of people feel this way, where they don't feel like they belong. This is not some great revelation. And so the sooner you can accept your weaknesses and lean into your strengths, the better off you are. So the more I can try to tell people that wherever that leads you, the better. It just took me a while, probably late thirties, early forties.DL: What were some of the styles you tried on before settling into your current one?LB: I grew up in the eighties, seventies and eighties. It was the suits, the, like, really uncomfortable suits, pantyhose, all that stuff, like uncomfortable shoes, not bright colors, or not speaking up, or worrying about how it comes out. I think the biggest thing that a lot of people won't do is admit they don't understand something. And I do that all the time at the meeting, I'm like, I have no idea what you're talking about, I literally have no clue what you just said. And a lot of people would never do that. And I think I sat through so many meetings where I would just go, I have no idea what those people are talking about. And now I'll say it and maybe people think I'm dumb, but I don't care. I'd rather—I'm positive that there's probably someone in the room that didn't follow it either.DL: Yes, exactly. I think that's so true.LB: But you know what? Shame and humiliation drive so many people and the way they conduct themselves, and the sooner you can sort of laugh at yourself, the better off the world would be.DL: That's very true, very true. I'm curious, over your 40-plus arguments, is there a win that you're most proud of? You have won a lot of really interesting cases, but is there one, maybe one that we haven't heard of or have not heard as much about?LB: Yes, and it'll be probably, you know, a lot of people will get mad at this, and please don't hate me on social media, but the [Adoptive Couple v.] Baby Girl case.DL: Ah yes….LB: With the Adoptive Couple [case] that I did with Paul, it just took, you know, like two years into my life and it was just a long, long struggle. And so I am proud that we won that case. It was just involved, a child, a family, and so it was just, to me, a meaningful case. It was also, you know, definitely one of my more memorable oral arguments.DL: I remember that case. I re-listened to that one recently, and this was a case that was interpreting the Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA, which is now back before the Court. And you just had a really powerful line in there where you said something like, “Look, we're talking about children, we're not talking about property or something.” You had a really resonant line in that argument.LB: Yeah, so I think in that case, I think it's fair to say that I know this from inside sources that, you know, you could see that case in two ways: it was one about the law and one about the facts. Then you can take it from there, and I chose to argue the case about the facts. I think the ICWA case now before the Court is very much about the law.DL: Interesting.LB: It's just so—some cases are more about the facts than the law.DL: I think you won that case on the facts as well. There were a lot of facts, I think, that were not great for the other side.LB: It was a 5-4 case. It was just tough, and the argument was very tough. It was also just very meaningful for me because I did it with Paul who was, you know, such an inspiration, and I basically give Paul credit for my entire career. So it was just a huge deal to me to have him up there arguing with me.I also blame Paul because I was really restrained in the whole beginning of the argument and it looked like we were losing. And Paul is like, you know, you gotta keep, keep it under control. And right before I went up for rebuttal, I said, “Can I just let loose?” And he said, “Yeah, just do it.” So I don't know if he remembers it that way, but I always say, Paul told me just to let loose, so that's what I did.DL: I would say another one of your superpowers is you really bring it in the rebuttal. Rebuttal is sometimes kind of an afterthought, but your rebuttal in that case, your rebuttal in the BL v. Mahanoy Area School District Case….LB: No, Oklahoma [Carpenter v. Murphy] was the worst.DL: What do you mean by the worst?LB: Well, because I basically said, this will stimulate you, and then repeated about rapists and molesters and murderers. It was, it was epic. And then everybody blamed me for going hysterical, and then everything I predicted happened in Oklahoma [after McGirt v. Oklahoma, which addressed the same issue after the Court deadlocked in Carpenter]. But yeah, no, the Oklahoma rebuttal was definitely one that was probably a little over the top.DL: Well look, sometimes you go a little over the top, but I think you also just bring a—I know you don't like this word as applied to argument—but I do think people would say you're a passionate advocate, or you're….LB: Ugh!!!DL: I know, I know, I've read your pieces saying don't use the P word, save it for your, save it for your hobbies, or…LB: Save it for sex.DL: Ha!LB: I'm not a big fan of “passion.” Do you really want a passionate surgeon? No.DL: Well, I guess maybe….LB: I just want someone who's good. Do you want a passionate architect? No. Do you want a passionate airline pilot? No. Just get me somebody who can get the job done and not mess up my face, or my house, or my plumbing. I mean, just get the job done. I do not want a passionate professional, period.DL: Okay, so well…..LB: I would say I'm extremely high-energy.DL: Yes, yes. And I think you just have a sort of sincerity, I think, [so] that nobody feels they're ever getting a snow job from you. It's like very, very honest, very unfiltered. And I think that that candor, that uber-compliance with the duty of candor to the court, I think is very appreciated by the judges.LB: Again, think of a surgeon. Seriously. When you're out and under their knife, you need them doing a good job with whatever they're repairing. Your life is in their hands and you need to take care of them. And that is in addition to putting myself in the role of a mother, I also think of a surgeon. I mean, you do everything you can for your kids. And if you're a surgeon, you know you got a job to do and you just, you gotta get it done. And so, I don't like that word “passion.” It sounds like it interferes with judgment. That's why I don't like that word. And maybe I am passionate, but I don't like to be called that.DL: So what are you passionate about then? What do you like to do outside of work? I see you, the listeners can't, but we're on Zoom, I see you're wearing a Peloton sweatshirt. Are you passionate about exercise? I know you mentioned you're not passionate about cooking or baking because you tried that on and that didn't work. So what do you like to do when you're not arguing before the Court?LB: I love to play with my dog, I love to exercise, I love music, and I love children.DL: Okay. Those are all worthy interests.So this is the lightning round, [since] I see our time is almost elapsed. Let me ask you my final four questions, which are standardized for all guests.The first is, what do you like the least about the law? And that can either be the practice of law or it can be law as that system that governs all of us.LB: The stereotypical male ego.DL: Fair enough. That is a good point and a very concise one. What would you be if you were not a lawyer?LB: Debate coach.DL: Oh, there are a lot of similarities there.LB: I would coach. I would be involved with children in some way, teacher, coaching, whatever I could do with kids.DL: Wonderful, wonderful.LB: I think everything that you think is different about me as an advocate is why I really come alive with children, because they're so not used to adults that are normal. They're so used to adults kind of doing weird stuff with kids and they're like, they just flip out when an adult is like, just tells it to them straight. They just, there's some way, just so much fun. I love kids.DL: Well, it's funny, I think in your Texas piece you had a line about how, well, the kids know that you're different from the other parents because….LB: I swear with them. I can't tell you how much I love kids. I mean, I love dogs too, but I love children.DL: Oh, that's great. Well, I'm sure that if you ever retire from Supreme Court advocacy, I'm sure a school or debate camp would love to have you.Question number three, how much sleep do you get each night?LB: I sleep all the time, in the middle of the day, in the morning, I just sleep. I love to sleep, so I don't know, seven, eight hours. I would sleep for 12 if I could. I really like to sleep.DL: I am so glad to hear that.LB: Naps are the best.DL: I agree with you on that. I have a great ability to nap. Unfortunately, not everyone does, and some people have trouble sleeping, but it sounds like you're not one of them.LB: I've had trouble since the pandemic. I've had trouble sleeping, but I still, then I'll just sleep in the daytime. But I do like to sleep, so I definitely get enough sleep.DL: Oh, good, good. And I guess my final question: any words of wisdom, especially for listeners who look at your life and career and say, I want to be Lisa Blatt?LB: Maybe it's two things that are similar. The hardest lessons are how to deal with failure, and you just can't let failure define you. It is inevitable. Setbacks are so inevitable, and so is embarrassment, shame, and humiliation. And so the sooner you can adapt to that, the better. Jeff Wall once gave me the best advice of my entire life: with every door that closes, the window opens. And the other thing that Jeff Wall told me that was sort of foundational was when you look back upon your life, will you be thinking about how much money you have or how many arguments you have? And the answer is no. You're not gonna be thinking, if I'd only had one more argument or gotten one more award, you'll be thinking about the relationships you've made along the way, that those are the most important. Now, I remember telling this to Judge [Pamela] Harris, who's an amazing Fourth Circuit judge, and she said, “No, that's not what I'll be thinking about, I'll be thinking about what good I did for the world.” And I was like, “Ah, I can't win for losing!” So if you don't think about your relationships, at least think about what good you did for the world.And then the other piece of advice, which is along [the lines of] don't let failure define you, is just don't let other people's view of you define you just because someone doesn't respect you. Okay. You need to define who you are for yourself, and it is so easy to see yourself through other people's eyes, and it's just something you need to fight if you're insecure, like I was.DL: Again, very, very true, and I think you have managed to succeed and define yourself in a really unique way. And again, I have such admiration for you, Lisa, and I'm so grateful to have you on the show.LB: Yeah. And David, let me just plug you. You're a god and my family loves you. My husband loves you. We always read you. You're just amazing. My husband follows everything you say about Yale.DL: Well, there's a lot to say, and I think I'm gonna be hopping on a train soon to head up there for an event. But, again, thank you so much….LB: We are avid, avid followers of you.DL: Thank you again, Lisa. This was so much fun and best of luck in the arguments you have stacked up for the rest of this Term.LB: Thank you. And thank you for inviting me!DL: Thanks again to Lisa for joining me. I'm always inspired by people like Lisa who can reach the pinnacle of the legal profession while remaining true to themselves. She's a unique advocate and personality, and I mean that in the very best sense.As always, thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers, for tuning in. If you'd like to connect with me, you can email me at davidlat@substack.com, and you can find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe to Original Jurisdiction. Since this podcast is relatively new, please help spread the word by telling your friends about it. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, as is most of the newsletter content, but it is made possible by your paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast should appear two weeks from now, on or about Wednesday, December 28. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; and (3) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

In the summer of 1927, nineteen bands/musicians responded to an ad in a newspaper for an opportunity to be a part of a recording session in Bristol, Tennessee. Some of the most well-known and influential names in American music were there: the Carter Family, Jimmie Rodgers, Ernest Stoneman, and many more. The Bristol Sessions were organized by Ralph Peer, who worked for Victor records, and was an attempt to capitalize on the increasing popularity of "hillbilly" music. These recordings were no doubt a key moment in country music's evolution. In this episode, we continue with Part 2 of our interview with Dr. Ted Olson and we discuss whether or not the Bristol Sessions were in fact the "Big Bang" of country music. The Good Neighbor Get Together is the podcast of Country Music Pride https://countrymusicpride.com https://thegoodneighborgettogether.com https://mcfarlandbooks.com/product/the-bristol-sessions/

Mastery of the sales process is not about jamming products down your target market's throats and earning the biggest revenue. It is more of playing the role of a counselor and problem-solver who brings genuine value to everyone. Alicia Couri sits down with Ted Olson, author of Feel Good About Selling, to discuss how to create an efficient sales system that is more about helping others than merely selling. He presents his unique framework and methodology called PEP, which stands for Positioning, Exploring, and Presenting. Ted also explains how to build confidence and implement the right marketing approach as a master at sales. He discusses how this tactic can invite potential buyers to your business instead of pushing them away. Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share!Here's How »Join the Leading With Audacious Community today:https://aliciacouri.com/Google PlusTwitterInstagramFacebook

In the summer of 1927, nineteen bands/musicians responded to an ad in a newspaper for an opportunity to be a part of a recording session in Bristol, Tennessee. Some of the most well-known and influential names in American music were there: the Carter Family, Jimmie Rodgers, Ernest Stoneman, and many more. The Bristol Sessions were organized by Ralph Peer, who worked for Victor records, and was an attempt to capitalize on the increasing popularity of "hillbilly" music. These recordings were no doubt a key moment in country music's evolution. In this episode, we interview Dr. Ted Olson and we discuss whether or not the Bristol Sessions were in fact the "Big Bang" of country music.  The Good Neighbor Get Together is the podcast of Country Music Pride ⁠https://countrymusicpride.com⁠ ⁠https://thegoodneighborgettogether.com⁠ ⁠https://mcfarlandbooks.com/product/the-bristol-sessions/⁠

EPISODE 73: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:45) SPECIAL COMMENT There WAS a Red Wave: A wave goodbye to your tsunami. Sanity got up off the mat. We beat the undead zombies with some well placed shovels. Fetterman defeated Oz. Free Crudites for EVERYONE. This could turn out to be the BEST midterms for any first-term president in decades. Joe Biden just went from nomination Dark Horse, to superhero Dark Brandon. And as a bonus, regardless of who ultimately gets the House and who gets the Senate, among Republicans, Trump will get much of the blame. B-Block (15:00) EVERY DOG HAS ITS DAY: Princess Wiggles in New York (15:58) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: 1/6 Commish interviews Trump's driver, big countries may finally pony up at COP27, Zelenskyy softens stance on negotiations with Russia (18:15) IN SPORTS: Dusty Baker will return, invoking memories of Jesse Orosco and the poet Rolfe Humphries (21:11) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Peacock, with its upcoming Casey Anthony series, battles Tucker "One of the Largest Sources of Death Threats" Carlson and Brett "Another Day, Another Scandal" Favre for the dishonors. C-Block (25:55) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: 25 years since I met her and nearly as long since I went out on a date with Laura Ingraham. It was worse than you'd expect, and it was followed by a second date that was actually closer to me being kidnapped and held hostage. But I learned a valuable lesson about how - and how efficiently - "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" actually works, that remains instructive to this day.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. William Turner and Dr. Ted Olson talk to Amythyst Kiah, an acclaimed musician and songwriter whose work is redefining genre boundaries and has established her as a distinctive new voice of Appalachia. Reconnecting with Amythyst in this episode is her mentor, Jack Tottle, an accomplished musician with a long career as a singer, songwriter, author, and educator.Amythyst Kiah has won critical acclaim as a member of the group Our Native Daughters and for her most recent album, Wary + Strange, which melds roots traditions with alternative rock in songs of personal revelation. She is a native of Chattanooga, TN, and a graduate of East Tennessee State University's Bluegrass, Old-Time, and Roots program. She received a Grammy nomination in 2020 for “Black Myself," a song she wrote to confront the oppression of her ancestors and to honor their strength.Jack Tottle is a multi-instrumentalist, recording artist, songwriter, author, and educator whose career has allowed him to share the stage with some of America's most revered bluegrass artists. He founded the first comprehensive bluegrass music studies program at a four-year university, East Tennessee State's Bluegrass, Old-Time, and Roots Music Studies program, which celebrates its 40th anniversary this year. For many years, he has examined the significant influence of Black Appalachian music on the bluegrass canon.Dr. William Turner is an African American studies scholar and retired Distinguished Professor of Appalachian Studies and Regional Ambassador from Berea College. He was also a research assistant to Roots author Alex Haley and co-editor of the groundbreaking Blacks in Appalachia. In 2021, Turner received Western Carolina University's individual Mountain Heritage Award in recognition of his outstanding contributions to Southern Appalachian studies. His memoir The Harlan Renaissance, available from West Virginia University Press, was awarded the prestigious Weatherford Award at the 2022 Appalachian Studies Association Conference.Dr. Ted Olson is a music historian and professor of Appalachian Studies at East Tennessee State University. He is the author of many books, articles, reviews, encyclopedia entries, and oral histories. Olson has produced and compiled a number of documentary albums of traditional Appalachian music including GSMA's On Top of Old Smoky and Big Bend Killing. His work has received a number of awards, including seven Grammy nominations. The East Tennessee Historical Society honored Olson with its Ramsey Award for Lifetime Achievement in 2021.Music featured includes:1.    “John Henry” and “Pretty Polly” performed by Amythyst Kiah and Roy Andrade from GSMA's album Big Bend Killing2.    “The Bluegrass Sound” by Jack Tottle, from a collaborative album he produced called The Bluegrass Sound and Other Stories3.    “Black Myself” performed live by Amythyst Kiah for our podcast. Recordings are available on Songs of Our Native Daughters and Wary + Strange4.    “Goin Down this Road Feelin' Bad” performed by Amythyst Kiah and Roy Andrade from GSMA's album On Top of Old Smoky: New Old-Time Smoky Mountain Music

In Conversation with Ted Olson, Author, Feel Good About Selling. He speaks to Subhanjan Sarkar in this episode on his book, Feel Good About Selling The post Bizcast: Bits about books – In Conversation with Ted Olson, Author, “Feel Good About Selling”  appeared first on Business Podcast Network.

On today's show, BUZZ creator Michael Hemphill features the music and legend of Doc Watson as an all-star lineup of musicians – Wayne Henderson, Jack Lawrence, T. Michael Coleman and Jack Hinshelwood, joined by East Tennessee State University Appalachian Studies professor Ted Olson – prepare to perform at the first ever Blue Ridge Jamboree in Roanoke, Virginia, on November 5, and Asheville, North Carolina on March 25. We also introduce you to the nonprofit that has created the Blue Ridge Jamboree – FRIENDS of the Blue Ridge – whose mission is building better community throughout the Blue Ridge region of Virginia and North Carolina. And we'll provide a sneak peek at our Season 3 premier of our TV show, BUZZ, a special one-hour episode highlighting the Grandin Theatre Film Lab.Are you a nonprofit with an event that we could help promote? Or a marketing problem we could help fix? Contact us and we'll share on an upcoming episode.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FOLLOW US:F A C E B O O K ➜ http://facebook.com/buzz4good​​I N S T A G R A M ➜ http://instagram.com/buzz4good​​L I N K E D I N ➜ https://www.linkedin.com/company/buzz...T W I T T E R ➜ http://twitter.com/buzz4good​​W E B S I T E ➜ http://buzz4good.com​​- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The United States has more than 1.5 million nonprofits — from homeless shelters, food banks and rescue squads to children's choirs, science museums and animal refuges — that employ one out of every 10 Americans. Like any company, nonprofits have salaries and bills to pay, a budget to balance. They require money. And if enough people don't know about them, don't believe in them, don't support them — in short, if they lack BUZZ — they suffer and die.

On this episode of our mini-series Sepia Tones, Dr. William Turner and Dr. Ted Olson welcome Dom Flemons, a renowned performer of American folk music and a founding member of The Carolina Chocolate Drops. Citing a variety of musical influences—including the legendary Howard Armstrong and the inimitable Elizabeth Cotten—Flemons shares his journey into becoming a tradition-bearer of old-time music and demonstrates the subtleties of rural black musical styles he's learned along the way. Dom Flemons is a founding member of the Grammy-winning Carolina Chocolate Drops, a two-time Emmy nominee, and the creative force behind a number of solo works including, most recently, Black Cowboys and Prospect Hill: The American Songster Omnibus. He is a multi-instrumentalist whose repertoire spans the history of American folklore, ballads, and tunes.Dr. William Turner is a long-time African American studies scholar and retired Distinguished Professor of Appalachian Studies and Regional Ambassador from Berea College. He was also a research assistant to Roots author Alex Haley and co-editor of the groundbreaking Blacks in Appalachia. In 2021, Turner received Western Carolina University's individual Mountain Heritage Award in recognition of his outstanding contributions to Southern Appalachian studies. His memoir called The Harlan Renaissance, available from West Virginia University Press, was awarded the prestigious Weatherford Award at the 2022 Appalachian Studies Association Conference.Dr. Ted Olson is a music historian and professor of Appalachian Studies at East Tennessee State University. He is the author of many books, articles, reviews, encyclopedia entries, and oral histories. Olson has produced and compiled a number of documentary albums of traditional Appalachian music including GSMA's own On Top of Old Smoky and Big Bend Killing. His work has received a number of awards, including seven Grammy nominations. The East Tennessee Historical Society honored Olson with its Ramsey Award for Lifetime Achievement in 2021.Music featured includes:1.    "John Henry" performed by Amythyst Kiah and Roy Andrade from GSMA's album Big Bend Killing2.    “Going Down the Road Feelin' Bad” and “Knox County Stomp,” both from Dom Flemons' most recent album, Black Cowboys, from Smithsonian Folkways Recordings3.    “Po' Black Sheep” performed by Dom Flemons as part of the African American Legacy Recordings series, co-produced with the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture. Courtesy of the Library of Congress4.    “Dona Got a Ramblin' Mind” and "Cornbread and Butterbeans" both by The Carolina Chocolate Drops and Joe Thompson, from their collaborative album released by Music Maker Foundation5.    And a selection of music performed for our podcast by Dom Flemons

Michael's conversation with attorneys David Boies and Theodore Olson, who argued the California Prop 8 case in court together (and were on opposite sides of the 2000 Bush V Gore legal challenges), on their book "Redeeming the Dream: The Case for Marriage Equality." Original air date 24 June 2014. The book was published on 17 June 2014.

On this episode of our mini-series Sepia Tones, Dr. William Turner and Dr. Ted Olson welcome a spirited conversation with special guests Dr. Kathy Bullock and Rev. Dr. Virgil Wood. Our guests discuss the African American traditions of spiritual music, gospel, and the unique revival of shape note singing in 20th-century Appalachia. In many cases, music from sacred traditions and communities also became anthems that propelled those struggling in the civil rights movement.Dr. Kathy Bullock is an arranger, choral conductor, pianist, and recently retired Professor Emerita of Music at Berea College in Kentucky specializing in gospel music, spirituals, and classical works by composers of the African diaspora.Dr. Virgil Wood is a longtime church leader, educator, and civil rights activist who, among many other accomplishments, helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference alongside the organization's first president, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. William Turner is a long-time African American studies scholar and retired Distinguished Professor of Appalachian Studies and Regional Ambassador from Berea College. He was also a research assistant to Roots author Alex Haley and co-editor of the groundbreaking Blacks in Appalachia. His memoir called The Harlan Renaissance is available now from West Virginia University Press. In 2021, Turner was honored with Western Carolina University's individual Mountain Heritage Award in recognition of his outstanding contributions to Southern Appalachian studies.Dr. Ted Olson is a professor of Appalachian Studies at East Tennessee State University and the author of many books, articles, reviews, encyclopedia entries, and oral histories. Olson has produced and compiled a number of documentary albums of traditional Appalachian music including GSMA's On Top of Old Smoky and Big Bend Killing. He's received a number of awards in his work, including seven Grammy nominations. The East Tennessee Historical Society recently honored Olson with its Ramsey Award for Lifetime Achievement in 2021.Music featured includes:"John Henry" performed by Amythyst Kiah and Roy Andrade from GSMA's album Big Bend Killing"Come and Go" performed by the Berea Black Music Ensemble at the Berea College Celebration of Traditional Music, 2014, Berea Sound Archive"I Have a Friend Above All Others" performed by the Bethlehem Kings Quartet, 1949, Berea Sound Archive"Swing Low" performed by Mount Sinai Spirituals at the Berea College Celebration of Traditional Music, 2015, Berea Sound Archive"Jesus Is a Rock in a Weary Land" performed by members of the Holiness Church by Faith in Ozark, AL, 1968, recorded by Richard H. Tallmadge, Berea Sound Archive"Precious Lord" performed by Nat Reese at the Berea College Celebration of Traditional Music,1991, Berea Sound Archive"Amazing Grace" performed by the Wiregrass Sacred Harp Singers during the Symposium of Rural Hymnody at Berea College, 1979, Berea Sound ArchiveAnd a selection of music performed for our podcast by Dr. Kathy Bullock

The current Supreme Court term promises to be one of the most eventful and impactful in recent memory. In this episode of "The Two Teds," Ted Boutrous and Ted Olson discuss some of the key cases that will be heard during this session, covering topics that include abortion rights and the First Amendment.

In this episode, Will and Neil sit down with seven time Grammy nominee Dr. Ted Olson to talk about the history of Bluegrass, Old Time and Country Music in the Appalachian region.  Listen as Dr. Olson discusses the origins of the "Birthplace of Country Music," and how place shapes a sound.  He might even give his take on one of Neil's favorites - KC.  In addition, don't forget to check out his newly released limited podcast series - "Sepia Tones: Exploring Black Appalachian Music."  Also, listen to hear what makes Will "tingle."  Don't forget to check out the App Biz of the week, the Mountain Music Exchange in Pikeville. Sepia Tones: Exploring Black Appalachian Music - www.buzzsprout.com/1026877/8920127 #AppBiz: Mountain Music Exchange - www.mountainmusicexchange.com    

Episode 189: Phoebe Hunt established herself on a national stage playing for years with her former band the Bellville Outfit out of Austin. Since pursuing a solo career in New York and now Nashville, she's come into her own as an artist with a highly developed global and spiritual perspective, expressed on the recent albums Shanti's Shadow and Neither One Of Us Is Wrong. She's also advocated for music as therapy and self-actualization through TED talks and a non-profit. This is an enriching talk about music's role and about some great new sounds. Also, I interview Dr. Ted Olson of ETSU about his liner notes for a new career-spanning Doc Watson anthology. 

Gibson Dunn's Ted Olson and Ted Boutrous discuss the firm's work on behalf of “Dreamers,” beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program, in multiple high-stakes court cases. Learn more about the strategies and the personal stakes at play during these important cases.

On this episode of our mini-series Sepia Tones, Dr. William Turner and Dr. Ted Olson examine music within rural communities with guests Earl White, Larry Kirksey, and Kip Lornell. Each of our guests has been on their own quest, whether seeking the musical kinship of other black performers past and present, finding a life outside of Kentucky coal camps, or documenting the rich musical landscape of rural communities.Earl White is an accomplished fiddler and prominent figure of old-time music and dance. He was a founding member of The Green Grass Cloggers, and his energetic and rhythmic fiddle style is showcased through his vast repertoire of Appalachian music. He resides in Floyd County, VA, where he and his wife run a farm and bakery.Larry Kirksey grew up in Harlan County in the Appalachian region of Kentucky, sharing a lifelong friendship with our host Dr. William Turner. He went on to become a respected coach in the NFL, achieving victory at Super Bowl XXIX with the San Francisco 49ers. From his beginnings in eastern Kentucky, his work has taken him all over the United States and to other countries.Kip Lornell is a professor of American music and ethnomusicology at George Washington University. He has written a number of books, articles, and essays and was awarded a Grammy in 1997 for his contribution to Smithsonian Folkways' Anthology of American Folk Music. He studied African American music for many years and completed field work in various areas, including the Appalachian region.Dr. William Turner is a long-time African American studies scholar who first rose to prominence as co-editor of the groundbreaking Blacks in Appalachia. He was also a research assistant to Roots author Alex Haley. Turner retired as distinguished professor of Appalachian Studies and regional ambassador at Berea College. His memoir called The Harlan Renaissance is forthcoming from West Virginia University Press.Dr. Ted Olson is a professor of Appalachian Studies at East Tennessee State University and the author of many books, articles, reviews, encyclopedia entries, and oral histories. Olson has produced and compiled a number of documentary albums of traditional Appalachian music including GSMA's On Top of Old Smoky and Big Bend Killing. He's received a number of awards in his work, including seven Grammy nominations. The East Tennessee Historical Society recently honored Olson with its Ramsey Award for Lifetime Achievement.Music selections include: "John Henry" performed by Amythyst Kiah and Roy Andrade from GSMA's album Big Bend Killing"Shuckin' the Brush" performed by The Earl White Stringband, from the 2018 Mountains of Music Homecoming CD In the Key of Blue, used courtesy of The Crooked Road: Virginia's Heritage Music Trail"G-Rag" performed by the Georgia Yellow Hammers accompanied by Jim and Andrew Baxter, recorded in 1927"Driftin' and Driftin'" performed by the Foddrell Brothers, accompanied by Lynn Foddrell, at the Berea College Celebration of Traditional Music in 1982, used courtesy of  Berea Sound ArchivesClogging audio clip from the short documentary film "The Green Grass Cloggers" produced in 1978 by David Balch, filmed at the 1978 North Carolina Folklife Festival, used courtesy of The Green Grass Cloggers with thanks to Leanne SmithDevil in the Strawstack" performed for our podcast by Earl White

Listen to Ted Olson and Ted Boutrous talk about the landmark court cases that helped to define marriage equality in the United States, including their work in overturning California's Proposition 8. You'll hear them discuss the legal strategies at play and why it was important to win over the hearts and minds of the American public.

On this special episode of Smoky Mountain Air, guest hosts Dr. William Turner and Dr. Ted Olson kick off an exciting new mini-series called Sepia Tones: Exploring Black Appalachian Music. Guests Loyal Jones, Sparky Rucker, and James Leva contribute to this lively conversation about the roots of Appalachian music and their own roles in preserving these musical influences.Loyal Jones served as director of the Appalachian Center now named in his honor at Berea College. He established the annual festival of traditional music at Berea and the Appalachian Sound Archive. Jones is the author of numerous books of regional interest.Sparky Rucker grew up in Knoxville, TN, and has become an internationally recognized folk singer, musician, and storyteller. He has been an educator, performer, and social activist and has been involved in the Civil Rights movement since the 1950s.James Leva is a multi-instrumentalist playing the fiddle, guitar, and banjo, and he’s a singer and songwriter. His work with The Lost Tribe of Country Music transcends racial and generational boundaries as well as musical genres.Dr. William Turner is a long-time African American studies scholar who first rose to prominence as co-editor of the groundbreaking Blacks in Appalachia (1985). He was also a research assistant to Roots author Alex Haley. Turner retired as distinguished professor of Appalachian Studies and regional ambassador at Berea College. His memoir called The Harlan Renaissance is forthcoming from West Virginia University Press in 2021.Dr. Ted Olson is a professor of Appalachian Studies at East Tennessee State University and the author of many books, articles, reviews, encyclopedia entries, and oral histories. Olson has produced and compiled a number of documentary albums of traditional Appalachian music including GSMA’s On Top of Old Smoky and Big Bend Killing. He’s received a number of awards in his work as a music historian, including seven Grammy nominations.Music selections in this episode:“John Henry” performed by Amythyst Kiah and Roy Andrade from GSMA's Big Bend Killing (https://www.smokiesinformation.org/big-bend-killing-the-appalachian-ballad-tradition-2-disk-cd)“Careless Love” performed on guitar by Etta Baker, used courtesy of Berea Sound Archive (https://soundarchives.berea.edu/items/show/2455)“Fly Around My Pretty Little Miss” performed by Ali Farka Touré with Lee Sexton and others from an informal gathering at the Smithsonian Folklife Festival, used courtesy of Bryan Wright of Rivermont Records“We Shall (We Will) Overcome” from the Highlander Collection of the Southern Folklife Collection, Wilson Special Collections Library, UNC Chapel Hill; used courtesy of the  Septima Clark Learning Center at Highlander Center (https://youtu.be/5YkTUeFViUY)“Come Sit By My Side Little Darlin’” performed by Bill Livers, Berea Sound Archive (https://soundarchives.berea.edu/items/show/6937)“Jola Gambia” performed by Daniel Jatta and the Lost Tribe of Country Music, used courtesy of James Leva (https://soundcloud.com/raisin-music/akonting)“My Home’s Across the Smoky Mountains,” performed by Sparky Rucker at the Berea College Celebration of Traditional Music, 1981, used courtesy of Digital Library of Appalachia’s Berea College collection (https://dla.acaweb.org/digital/collection/berea/id/2625/rec/11)

Protecting First Amendment rights has long been a hallmark of Gibson Dunn's practice. In particular, we have vigilantly defended freedom of the press and its indispensable role in a healthy democracy. On this episode of the podcast, Ted Boutrous and Ted Olson discuss some of the most important and interesting First Amendment cases they've worked on.

Our guests Dr. William Turner and Dr. Ted Olson talk about an exciting new podcast mini-series they'll be co-hosting as part of Smoky Mountain Air called Sepia Tones: Exploring Black Appalachian Music. This mini-series can be found right here through this podcast, with new episodes every other month. Dr. William Turner is a long-time African American studies scholar who first rose to prominence as co-editor of the groundbreaking Blacks in Appalachia (1985). He was also a research assistant to Roots author Alex Haley. Turner retired as distinguished professor of Appalachian Studies and regional ambassador at Berea College. His memoir called The Harlan Renaissance is forthcoming from West Virginia University Press in 2021.Dr. Ted Olson is a professor of Appalachian Studies at East Tennessee State University and the author of many books, articles, reviews, encyclopedia entries, and oral histories. Olson has produced and compiled a number of documentary albums of traditional Appalachian music including GSMA's On Top of Old Smoky and Big Bend Killing. He's received a number of awards in his work as a music historian, including seven Grammy nominations.We spoke to Dr. William Turner and Dr. Ted Olson on an online video chat.Music selections in this episode:"My Home's Across the Smoky Mountains" by Sparky Rucker from the Digital Library of Appalachia's Berea College collection (https://dla.acaweb.org/digital/collection/berea/id/2625/rec/11)"John Hardy" by Martin Simpson, featuring Dom Flemons on harmonica and bones, from On Top of Old Smoky: New Old-Time Smoky Mountain Music (https://www.smokiesinformation.org/on-top-of-old-smoky-new-old-time-smoky-mountain-music-cd)"Key to the Highway" by the Foddrell Brothers from the Berea Sound Archive (https://soundarchives.berea.edu/items/show/2652)"John Henry" by Amythyst Kiah and Roy Andrade from Big Bend Killing (https://www.smokiesinformation.org/big-bend-killing-the-appalachian-ballad-tradition-2-disk-cd)"Goin' Down this Road Feelin' Bad" by Amythyst Kiah and Roy Andrade from On Top of Old Smoky: New Old-Time Smoky Mountain Music (https://www.smokiesinformation.org/on-top-of-old-smoky-new-old-time-smoky-mountain-music-cd)

In this first episode of “The Two Teds,” Ted Boutrous and Ted Olson discuss the paths that led them to become two of America's leading litigators. They delve into their backgrounds and what drove them to become lawyers. They also touch on legal cases they've worked on together and Ted Olson's first Supreme Court case.

The world of work has essentially changed forever with virtual selling. Many organizations may not have the luxury of augmenting their salesforce with talents that is more naturally suited for this environment, however there is a real opportunity to use this new medium to make our sales teams even better. Ted Olsen leads this conversation in helping sales leaders understand how to coach individuals who are struggling in the new environment by continuing to tap into their natural strengths Ted Olson currently leads the rapidly expanding partner activation channel at The Predictive Index (PI). Prior to this role, Ted built the direct sales team at PI that broke every record in the 65 year history of the company. Show notes: Many folks who are now struggling to adapt their presentation, their ability to ask good questions in a virtual environment is because it's a different medium. To be able to pivot, and do it well is challenging for many. That said, the digital environment is ideal for really sharpening and honing your sales skills because you can use data such as talk time, interaction time, and patience scores to improve. If your top performers are coming to you with a list of “B player” excuses (I can't get my call cadence right, prospects aren't responding; the environment's really difficult), the first thing is to set the tone that that's not okay. When it comes to rethinking goals for the second half of 2020, it is up to the sales leader to inform the management team of the changes. For example, based on the data that we have so far, based on reduced number of leads, etc., we can begin to project and forecast new numbers and figure out some creative approaches that will help us find our way through the storm. Everyone is looking for help in navigating the storm. And right now B players are not going to last in this storm. They're going to be siphoned out. The same way that professional sports uses data and stats to understand which players to put on the field, in which order, in which position, working on the same goals to deliver on the goal, that's what Predictive Index does to build a winning sales team. The discipline of talent optimization, (which is the idea of using data to understand your people so you understand what naturally resonates with them), so you can tap into those superpowers, is a sales leader's secret weapon. Every sales environment is different. Data helps you to understand your people so you understand what naturally resonates with them and their behavioral styles to know which environment will best suit them. Some sales systems and environments are operationalized and process-driven that you need a different type of person to be super effective in that environment versus the more typical, stereotypical salesperson who is naturally persuasive and can think quickly on their feet. The world of work has essentially changed forever with more remote work. There are behavioral drives that you can recognize and pick up with PI software that helps sales leaders understand who are those that can really struggle in an environment, in a virtual environment and who are perfectly capable of functioning at a very high level in a remote environment. For links and resources, visit the episode's webpage: https://nigelgreen.co/revenue-harvest/

Looking for more One Last Thought content? You can now join the OLT INSIDER program at https://glow.fm/oltinsider/ and unlock your very own private feed packed with exclusive episodes, early-released episodes, and so much more! Want to learn the most powerful 15 life-lessons I’ve learned while hosting the One Last Thought podcast? Get it FREE through this link: https://www.bit.ly/15Thingslearned *Have you been to* *OneLastThoughtPod.com* ( https://www.onelastthoughtpod.com/ ) *yet? Would you like to automatically create a beautiful website just like mine? Find out how using this unique link:* *https://www.onelastthoughtpod.com/podpage* ( https://www.onelastthoughtpod.com/podpage ) *Guests* : Jamie Brown Hantman, Dustin Mathews In this week’s episode of The One Last Thought Podcast, we are joined by two great leaders in Jamie Brown Hantman and Dustin Mathews. Unbeknownst to one another, they were both sharing their take on how we must all focus on what we can control, how to live a life of better focus and results, and how we all need to go all-in on today, and repeat the process again tomorrow and the next day, and so on. *Guest bios:* *Jamie Brown Hantman* has worked at the highest levels of government, including service at the White House and the U.S. Department of Justice. She spearheaded legislative strategy for the confirmations of two U.S. Supreme Court Justices and ran Legislative Affairs for the Department of Justice shortly after 9/11, working with a dream team of legal superstars, including Robert Mueller and Ted Olson. She spent time on Capitol Hill and K Street, including as an early DC hire for Google. In 2008, Politico named her one of “50 Politicos to Watch.” Jamie lives in the DMV with her husband, daughter, and disobedient beagle. *Dustin Mathews* is a Co-Founder at WealthFit.com, an author and speaker. *Connect with our guests:* *Dustin Mathews :* Twitter: https://twitter.com/dustinmathews LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thedustinmathews/ Website: http://www.getwealthfit.com ( http://www.getwealthfit.com/ ) Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dustinmathews Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thedustinmathews/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/wealthfit Email: dustin@wealthfit.com *Jamie Brown Hantman :* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jamie-brown-hantman-9b74195/ Website: https://jamiehantman.com ( https://jamiehantman.com/ ) Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jamiehantman/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/jebella *Promotions and Giveaways:* *Jamie Brown Hantman :* Be sure to check out Heels in the Arena: Living Purple in a Red/Blue Town ( https://jamiehantman.com/ ) available wherever books are sold. *Dustin Mathews :* Check out Dustin’s Podcast, Get Wealthfit ( https://player.fm/series/get-wealthfit ). Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/one-last-thought/exclusive-content

This month, the Supreme Court is expected to decide a case with enormous repercussions: the Trump Administration’s cancellation of DACA, a policy that protects young immigrants commonly known as Dreamers. In November, Jonathan Blitzer spoke with two attorneys who argued the case, just before they went before the Court. Ted Olson, a noted litigator, is generally a champion of conservative issues, but he is fighting the Trump Administration here. Luis Cortes is a thirty-one-year-old from Seattle arguing his first Supreme Court case. He is himself an undocumented immigrant protected by DACA; if he loses, his own legal residency would be immediately threatened. Plus, the writer Bryan Washington, a native of Houston, remembers the social life of gay bars before the pandemic.

Christiane Amanpour is joined by Adam Schiff, Chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, to discuss how the Coronavirus is affecting both political and economic life in America. In Mexico 10 women are killed every day because of their gender. Mexican Journalist Lydia Cacho tells Christiane about her experience of femicide and of being forced to flee her country because of her gender. And our Walter Isaacson speaks to Ted Olson, former United States Solicitor General. Once involved in landmark political cases such as Bush vs Gore and Hollingsworth vs Perry, he is now fighting for America's Dreamers, the young DACA recipients under fire from the Trump administration.

Ted Olson, an attorney who has argued more than 60 cases before the Supreme Court, joins Reaganism to discuss the legacy of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, his role in the Bush v. Gore Case, and the DACA case currently pending before the Supreme Court. Show Notes https://twitter.com/ReaganInstitutehttps://www.facebook.com/reaganinstitutehttps://www.instagram.com/reaganinstitute  

Jaime, Kate, and Melissa break down the DACA argument and speak with Luis Cortes, who worked on the DACA case and is a DACA recipient himself.  They also talk about their favorite Thanksgiving sides and desserts.

Jeff Sessions, then the Attorney General, announced in 2017 the cancellation of the Obama-era policy known as DACA—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. A number of plaintiffs sued, and their case goes to the Supreme Court next week. The New Yorker’s Jonathan Blitzer spoke with two of the attorneys who will argue for it. The noted litigator Ted Olson is generally a champion of conservative issues, but he is fighting the Trump Administration on this case. He told Blitzer, “It’s a rule-of-law case—not a liberal or conversative case—involving hundreds of thousands of individuals who will be hurt by an abrupt and unexplained and unjustified change in policy.” And Blitzer also spoke with Luis Cortez, a thirty-one-year-old from Seattle who is arguing his first Supreme Court case. Cortez is an immigration lawyer who is himself an undocumented immigrant protected by DACA status; if he loses his case, he will be at risk of deportation. 

Jeff Sessions, then the Attorney General, announced in 2017 the cancellation of the Obama-era policy known as DACA—Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. A number of plaintiffs sued, and their case goes to the Supreme Court next week. The New Yorker’s Jonathan Blitzer spoke with two of the attorneys who will argue for it. The noted litigator Ted Olson is generally a champion of conservative issues, but he is fighting the Trump Administration on this case. He told Blitzer, “It’s a rule-of-law case—not a liberal or conversative case—involving hundreds of thousands of individuals who will be hurt by an abrupt and unexplained and unjustified change in policy.” And Blitzer also spoke with Luis Cortes, a thirty-one-year-old from Seattle who is arguing his first Supreme Court case. Cortes is an immigration lawyer who is himself an undocumented immigrant protected by DACA status; if he loses his case, he will be at risk of deportation. Plus, while reporting on wildfire in Los Angeles, the writer Dana Goodyear was evacuated from her home. She sees the increasing frequency of intense fires as a wake-up call from the California dream.

(00:00-10:01): Series of Wildfires Break Out across California, Thousands of Acres Scorched. Brian and Ian talk about the devastating fires out west that have put thousands out of their homes. They touch on what they would do if they had to give up everything to escape a tragedy. (10:01-19:18): What happens when you plant a church only for Walt Disney World employees? Brian and Ian discuss this Christianity Today article by Ted Olson about the church exclusively for Disney workers. Is it wrong that it is only allowed for employees? Is it any different from a Spanish speaking church, or a members-only club? (19:18-28:24): Who knew that beer had such a prominent history among historic Christian leaders? Brian and Ian touch on this Relevant article that covers five of the faith's most famous brew-masters and beer drinkers. (28:24-37:54): “Texas Judge Gives Dad Rights over 7-Year-Old Son's Gender Transition” writes Amanda Casanova in Christian Headlines. Brian and Ian talk about the disturbing leeway society gives parents to intercede their children’s gender identity, and even allows chemical castration. (37:54-48:28): Gospel star Kirk Franklin boycotts Dove Awards after speech mentioning Atatiana Jefferson is cut from broadcast. Brian and Ian listen to his statement and respond to how censorship is interrupting the freedom of speech. (48:28-58:50): “Christians Shouldn’t Just Celebrate Halloween, They Should Be the Life of the Party” writes Jack Lee in Patheos. Brian and Ian talk about how we need to be in the world, not of it, which means meeting those we are trying to reach where they are. It is an opportunity to effortlessly and shamelessly meet your neighbors and strike up a conversation. (58:50-1:09:02): We are joined in-studio by Jeff Prosapio, president from FiveFour Company, a real estate company based in Chicago. The mission of his company is to solve poverty by buying real estate. He and his wife believed that God has his fingerprints all over his move to Colorado. (1:09:02-1:15:51): Brian and Ian’s “Weird Stuff We Found on the Internet”: Modern-day castaway lost in the woods in California, and encounters a bear who loves whipped cream. Delinquent ninja breaks a windshield with nunchucks, and zombies are a bad influence in South Carolina. Meanwhile, nudists don’t wear helmets.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

(00:00-09:35): Dan Ehrman is here THE WHOLE TIME to help carry the show. They dive right into a sarcastic story: A-listers flock to Google summit in private jets, mega yachts to talk climate change. Is the aspect of hypocrisy in politics more obvious than the public figures think? (09:35-18:58): Mr. Rogers’ career spanned almost half a century and impacted the children of America with his unwavering kindness and simple life lessons. Brian and Dan talk about the resurgence of love for Rogers and why it resonates in this age of anger. (18:58-28:01): Christian artist Aaron Shust joins the show to talk about his current projects. He is best known for his hits “My Hope is in You” and “Ever Be”. He will be at Trinity Lutheran Church in Tinley Park on September 27th. He says it will be a stripped down, acoustic style setup but feature all new songs. Tickets are available here. (28:01-37:00): This woman thinks that childless millennials should be banned from Disney World. However, Brian and Dan both resonate with the nostalgia and the Disney magic and can see how, in this day and age, young adults flock to the theme park to relive childhood memories. (37:00-47:39): Ted Olson writes “Remembering Rob Moll: Our friend and coworker had joyfully prepared for his tragic death” This Christianity Today post touches on the tough topic of not fearing death and how the ultimate prize is the Lord and eternal salvation. Brian and Dan reflect on this. (47:39-58:15): Reverend Wesley King joins the show to talk about the Global Leadership Summit. Attendance at the Willow Creek campus provides the energy of an expected 9,300 attendees experiencing programing and most of the faculty in person surrounded by leaders from 120+ countries. The Summit is August 8-9. (58:15-1:08:31): Dan and Brian dive back into the issues surrounding Willow Creek. As a Willow satellite attendee, Dan weighs in on how the church is recovering and how the center of the church isn’t people, it is Christ. (1:08:31-1:14:49): Brian and Ian’s “Weird Stuff We Found on the Internet”: Florida housing market goes up in flames, while pub-goers decide to take gas to go. Mrs. Doubtfire resurges and breaks into a Tennessee woman’s home, and Cookie Monster is not doing well post Sesame Street. Meanwhile, Bigfoot remains hidden because people keep shooting at him.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scheduled to testify in front of Congress Wednesday. He’ll answer questions about the 400-plus page report he delivered to the Attorney General in March. The report details a two-year investigation on Russian election interference and whether President Trump obstructed justice. It left almost as many open questions as there were before Mueller began his probe. Some people argue the President has been cleared and it’s time to move on. How will what Mueller says to lawmakers change the public’s perspective? Will his testimony alter the trajectory in Washington? How will it impact policy? Neal Katyal, Georgetown Law professor, joins Ted Olson, former Solicitor General, and Garrett Graff, director of a Cyber-Journalism Initiative at the Aspen Institute. Mary Louise Kelly, co-host of “All Things Considered” at NPR, moderates their discussion. The views and opinions of the podcast guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Aspen Institute.

NCC President Jeffrey Rosen recently traveled to Aspen, Colorado for the Aspen Ideas Festival, where he moderated a panel on the 2018-19 Supreme Court term featuring an all-star line-up of legal commentators: appellate lawyers and former Solicitors General Neal Katyal and Ted Olson, Harvard legal history professor Annette Gordon-Reed, CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic, and New York Times Magazine staff writer and Yale Law School lecturer Emily Bazelon. The panel explored how the Court’s recent decisions – including the census citizenship question and partisan gerrymandering decisions – will affect our lives. They also discussed the future of abortion rights and of the administrative state at the Court, the dynamics of the new Roberts Court, and much more.  This conversation was presented by the Aspen Institute as part of the Aspen Ideas Festival.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. 

Before it wrapped up its term in June, the Supreme Court made decisions on two landmark cases: political gerrymandering and the census. How do these decisions and the makeup of the current Court foretell what’s to come on issues like Roe v. Wade, voting rights, and free speech? A panel of leading legal experts weighs in on how this term will impact the issues at the core of American life. Panelists include Neal Katyal, former US solicitor general, Emily Bazelon, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, Annette Gordon-Reed, professor at Harvard Law School, Joan Biskupic, legal analyst for CNN, and Ted Olson, an attorney who has argued more than 60 cases in front of the Supreme Court. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates the conversation. The views and opinions of the podcast guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Aspen Institute.

Essay on Civil DisobediencePerpetua, in Mark Gali and Ted Olson 131 Christians Everyone Should Know (Broadman and Holman, 2000) 363. See also https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=48St. Patrick Of IrelandThe Reverend Richard Allen by Reid S. MonaghanFirst Among Poets, The Life of Jupiter Hammond by Reid S. MonaghanSojourner Truth, When I found Jesus by Reid S. MonaghanFrancis Grimke: Pastor, Preacher, Activist by Reid S. MonaghanWe have this Ministry - Learning from the Life of Gardner C. Taylor by Reid S. MonaghanWiki on Richard Wurmbrand

At the age of 85, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has developed a breathtaking legal legacy while becoming an unexpected pop culture icon. But without a definitive Ginsburg biography, the unique personal journey of this diminutive, quiet warrior's rise to the nation's highest court has been largely unknown, even to some of her biggest fans – until now. RBG is a revelatory documentary exploring Ginsburg 's exceptional life and career from Betsy West and Julie Cohen, and co-produced by Storyville Films and CNN Films. DIRECTED AND PRODUCED BY Betsy West and Julie Cohen WATCH the trailer! STARRING...Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Jane and James Ginsburg, Clara Spera, Gloria Steinem, Nina Totenberg, Lilly Ledbetter, Sharron Frontiero and Stephen Wiesenfeld, Irin Carmon and Shana Knizhnik, Bill Clinton, Ted Olson, Judge Harry Edwards, Senator Orrin Hatch, Eugene Scalia and Bryant Johnson

In this episode we're learning about the Mountains of Music Homecoming series of concerts and other events held throughout Southwest Virginia each summer. Ted Olson, a music historian at East TN State U and MC of many past Mtns of Music concerts, sat down in the studio with myself and WMMT programmer Rich Kirby to talk about the history of the program, and to highlight this summer’s excellent schedule. Along the way we’ll hear tunes recorded live at past Mtns. of Music concerts!

Today's episode tackles the recent lawsuit filed by Paul Manafort against the Department of Justice, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein, and Robert Mueller. First, we share some insights from our listeners about our recent deep dive into cryptocurrency, and promise a return visit Real Soon Now. After that, we take a deep dive into Chevron deference, Neil Gorsuch's mommy, and the legal landscape set more than 30 years ago... and why that's all come under fire by one Paul S. Manafort.  It's an extra-long, double-length segment but we think you'll love it! Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Yvette!) Take the Bar Exam Question #57 about a  wanderer stuck in a snowstorm who breaks into a cabin... look, you'll just have to listen, okay?  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We first discussed cryptocurrency in OA 134. You should read the Manafort lawsuit, and then to understand it, try and tackle Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). We started warning you about Neil Gorsuch way back in Epsiode 40.  We were right.  The case in which he salivates about overturning Chevron deference is Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (2016). Count I of the complaint arises under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.  Count II arises under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. This is Rod Rosenstein's Order appointing Mueller, No. 3915-2017, and this is 28 U.S.C. § 515, which plainly authorizes it. Finally, you can read Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) and also laugh at the fantastic what-if comic about Ted Olson. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute Trustee Ted Olson, who has known President Reagan since his term as Governor of California, shares stories of the President's warmth and kindness.

Learn a bit about our next Supreme Court Justice -  Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch - President Donald Trump nominates Tenth Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of The United States of America On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society established this annual lecture in Barbara's memory because of her enormous contributions as an active member, supporter, and volunteer leader. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. In 2013, the Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit delivered the lecture. He was introduced by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society. 0:09 I want to welcome you all 0:12 13th annual Barbara 0:14 memorial lecture I am eugene meyer 0:17 President of the Federal society and 0:19 this memorial lecture series started as 0:22 many of you know with Ted Olson 0:24 inaugural lecture which reminded us of 0:26 what it means to be an American and how 0:28 are legal tradition is part of our 0:30 identity as Americans both dead and 0:33 Barbara understood this disconnection 0:36 between our tradition our identity we 0:40 want the lecture series to remind 0:42 lawyers of it so that they foster legal 0:44 principles that advanced individual 0:46 freedom personal responsibility and the 0:48 rule of law tends inaugural lecture was 0:52 followed by ken starr Robert Bork 0:55 Justice Scalia judge Randolph Vice 0:58 President Cheney and chief justice 1:00 roberts and judges he gets Jones Douglas 1:03 Ginsburg and Dennis Jacob's former 1:06 attorney General Michael Mukasey and 1:08 entrepreneur Peter teal that brings us 1:11 to today's lecture is my honor to 1:14 introduce for today's lecture the 1:17 Honorable Neil gorgeous is a judge for 1:20 the US Court of Appeals on the tenth 1:22 circuit where he served since 1986 1:25 before his clerkship a force judgeship 1:28 rather he clerked 1:31 all the way clerkship applications or 1:34 and things are going these days you have 1:36 no idea what the order is gonna fit 1:40 I actually think they're going to send 1:41 out the clerkship applications or with 1:43 with the emits with the additions to law 1:45 school the way way it's going but anyone 1:47 on before his clerkship he clerked for 1:49 justices wieden kennedy and on the court 1:52 of appeals for judges and tell he was a 1:55 partner Kelly cuber and principal deputy 1:57 associate attorney general in addition 2:00 to his judge ship is also currently an 2:03 adjunct law professor at the University 2:04 of Colorado where he he taught what he 2:06 taught yesterday accident yesterday 2:08 evening and I'd say beyond his paper 2:13 resume judge course which is widely 2:15 viewed as one of the best legal minds of 2:17 his generation 2:19 additionally even as young age he has 2:22 met heard many of his clerks who have 2:25 gone on too many prestigious legal jobs 2:27 including clerkship for the US supreme 2:29 court without further ado it is my honor 2:33 to introduce to you judge neil questions 2:46 actually Jean with the judicial salaries 2:50 being what they are and clerkship 2:52 bonuses what they become I've been more 2:58 than tempted to throw in another 2:59 application justice candidate see where 3:02 it goes 3:05 I'm not sure I want to be a law partner 3:07 again but I wouldn't mind being putting 3:08 those little room and told right briefs 3:10 all day for the price that they're 3:11 getting paid 3:12 Eric thank you for that very kind 3:14 introduction 3:15 it's an honor to be with you in a 3:18 special pleasure to be part of a lecture 3:20 series dedicated to the memory Barbara 3:22 Olson and the causes that she held dear 3:26 the rule of law limited government and 3:29 human liberty and it's not a little dot 3:31 little bit daunting to be added the list 3:33 of folks you've mentioned who given this 3:35 talk before 3:36 let me begin by asking whether any of 3:41 you have ever suffered through a case 3:43 that sounds like this one in the course 3:46 of time this suit has become so 3:48 complicated that no man alive knows what 3:52 it means a long procession of judges has 3:57 come in and going out the Legion of 3:59 bills and the suit had become 4:01 transformed into mere Bills of mortality 4:04 but still it drags its very length 4:07 before the court parentally hopeless 4:11 how familiar to set 4:14 could it be a line lifted maybe from a 4:16 speaker at a recent electronic discovery 4:18 conference from a brief for sanctions 4:23 your latest case maybe from a recent 4:26 judicial performance complaint 4:28 well of course the line comes from 4:31 Dickens Bleak House published 1853 it 4:35 still resonates today though because the 4:37 laws promise of deliberation and due 4:39 process sometimes ironically invites the 4:42 in justices of delay and ear resolution 4:45 like any human Enterprise the laws 4:48 crooked timber occasionally produces the 4:50 opposite of the intended effect we turn 4:53 to the law earnestly to promote a worthy 4:55 idea and wind up with a host of 4:57 unwelcome side effects that do more harm 4:59 than good 5:00 in fact when you think about it the 5:02 whole business is something an irony we 5:04 depend upon the rule of law to guarantee 5:06 freedom but we have to give up freedom 5:08 to live under the laws rules and around 5:11 about way that leads me to the topic I'd 5:14 like to discuss with you tonight laws 5:16 irony Dickens had a keen eye for it but 5:21 even he was only reworking familiar 5:22 themes Hamlet rude the laws delay girder 5:26 left the practice of law and discussed 5:28 after witnessing thousands of aging 5:30 cases waiting vainly for resolution in 5:33 the courts of his time 5:34 demosthenes made similar complaints 5:37 2,000 years ago and truth is I fully 5:40 expect lawyers and judges to carry on 5:42 similar conversations about the laws 5:44 ironies 2,000 years from now but just 5:49 because some unwelcome ironies maybe as 5:52 endemic to law as they are to life 5:54 Dickens would remind us that's hardly 5:56 reason to let them go unremarked and 5:58 then addressed so it is I'd like to 6:01 begin by discussing a few of the laws 6:03 ironies that I imagine he would consider 6:05 worthy of attention by us in our own 6:08 time consider first hour version of the 6:12 Bleak House irony 6:14 yes i'm referring to civil discovery 6:18 the adoption of the modern rules of 6:21 civil procedure in 1938 marked the start 6:25 of a self-proclaimed experiment with 6:28 expansive pretrial discovery something 6:31 previously unknown to the federal courts 6:33 more than 70 years later we still call 6:36 those rules the new and the modern rules 6:39 of civil procedure that's a pretty odd 6:42 thing when you think about it maybe the 6:44 only thing that really sounds newer 6:46 modern after 70 years is keith richards 6:49 of The Rolling Stones some might say 6:54 looks like he's done some experimenting 6:56 to in any event or 1938 forefathers 7:02 expressly rested their modern discovery 7:04 experiment on the assumption that with 7:07 ready access to an opponent's 7:09 information parties to civil disputes 7:11 would achieve fair and cheaper merits 7:13 based resolutions 7:15 how's that working out for you 7:18 does modern discovery practice really 7:22 lead to faster and more efficient 7:24 resolutions based on the merits 7:26 I don't doubt it does in many cases but 7:28 should we be concerned when eighty 7:30 percent of the american college of trial 7:32 lawyers say the discovery costs and 7:34 delays keep injured parties from 7:36 bringing valid claims to court or 7:39 concern when 70-percent also say 7:42 attorneys use discovery cost is a threat 7:44 to force settlements that aren't merits 7:47 based at all 7:48 have we may be gone so far down the road 7:51 of civil discovery that ironically 7:53 enough we begun to undermine the 7:55 purposes that animated our journey the 7:57 first place 7:58 what we have today to be sure is not 8:01 your father's discovery producing 8:04 discovery anymore doesn't mean rolling a 8:05 stack of bankers boxes across the street 8:09 we live in an age when every bit and 8:11 byte of information is stored seemingly 8:12 forever and is always retrievable if 8:15 sometimes only at the cost of a small 8:17 fortune today the world sends 50 8:20 trillion emails a year an average 8:22 employees sends or receives over a 8:23 hundred everyday that doesn't begin to 8:25 count the billions of instant messages 8:27 shooting around the globe 8:30 this isn't a world the writers of the 8:31 discovery rules could have imagined in 8:33 1938 no matter how modern they were no 8:37 surprise then that many people now 8:39 simply opt out of the civil justice 8:41 system altogether private ATR bounds but 8:45 even now the federal government has 8:46 begun avoiding its own court system 8:49 recently for example it opted for 8:51 private ADR to handle claims arising 8:53 from the BP oil spill 8:55 now that may be an understandable 8:57 development given the costs and delays 8:58 inherent in modern civil practice but it 9:01 raises questions to about the 9:03 transparency and independence of the 9:05 decision-making the lack of the 9:07 development of precedent in the future 9:09 role of our courts and civic life for 9:13 society aspiring to live under the rule 9:15 of law does this represent an advanced 9:17 perhaps something else we might even ask 9:21 what part the rise of discoveries played 9:23 in the demise of the trial surely other 9:26 factors are play here given the 9:27 disappearance criminal trials as well 9:29 but we've now trained generations of 9:32 attorneys as discovery artists rather 9:34 than trial lawyers they're skilled in 9:37 the game of imposing invading costs and 9:40 delays their poets of the nasty gram 9:43 able to write interrogatories in iambic 9:47 pentameter get terrified of trial the 9:53 founders thought trials were a bulwark 9:55 of the rule of law as far as Hamilton 9:58 saw the only room for debate was over 9:59 when / weathered retrials were in his 10:02 words either a valuable safeguard the 10:04 liberty with a very palladium 10:06 self-government what is that still 10:08 common ground today no doubt our modern 10:11 discovery experiment is well-intentioned 10:13 get one of its effects has been to 10:15 contribute to the death of an 10:17 institution once thought essential to 10:19 the rule of law 10:20 what about our criminal justice system 10:23 you might ask it surely bears its share 10:27 of ironies to consider this one without 10:30 question the discipline of writing the 10:33 law down of Cardiff eyeing it advances 10:35 the laws interest in fair notice but 10:38 today we have about 5,000 federal 10:41 criminal statutes on the books 10:43 most of them added in the last few 10:45 decades and the spigot keeps pourin with 10:48 literally hundreds of new statutory 10:50 crimes think every single year 10:53 neither does that begin to count the 10:55 thousands of additional regulatory 10:56 crimes buried in the federal register 10:58 there are so many crimes cowled in the 11:02 numbing fine print of those pages the 11:05 scholars have given up counting and are 11:07 now debating their number when he led 11:10 the Senate Judiciary Committee Joe Biden 11:12 worried that we have assumed a tendency 11:14 to federalize quote everything that 11:16 walks talks and moves maybe we should 11:19 say hoots too because it's now a federal 11:23 crime to misuse the likeness of woodsy 11:25 the owl or is more words give a hoot 11:29 don't pollute businessmen who import 11:32 lobster tails and plastic bags rather 11:34 than cardboard boxes can be brought up 11:36 on charges mattress sellers remove that 11:39 little tag 11:40 yes they're probably federal criminals 11:42 to whether because of Public Choice 11:45 problems or otherwise there appears to 11:47 be a ratchet relentlessly clicking away 11:49 always in the direction of more never 11:52 fewer federal criminal walls some reply 11:55 that the growing number of federal 11:56 crimes isn't out of proportion to our 11:58 population and its growth others suggest 12:01 that the proliferation of federal 12:02 criminal laws can be mitigated by 12:04 allowing the mistake of law defense to 12:06 be more widely asserted but isn't there 12:09 a trouble irony lurking here in any 12:11 event without written laws we lack fair 12:14 notice of the rules we as citizens have 12:16 to obey but with too many written laws 12:19 don't we invite a new kind of fair 12:22 notice problem and what happens to 12:24 individual freedom and equality when the 12:26 criminal law comes to cover so many 12:28 facets of daily life 12:30 the prosecutors can almost choose their 12:32 targets with impunity the sort of 12:36 excesses of executive authority invited 12:38 by too few written laws led to the 12:40 rebellion against King John and the 12:42 ceiling of the Magna Carta one of the 12:44 great advances in the rule of law and 12:46 history bears warning the too many the 12:49 too much and too much an accessible law 12:51 can lead to executive access as well 12:55 Caligula sought to protect his authority 12:58 by publishing the law a hand so small 13:01 and posted so high that no one could 13:04 really be sure what was and wasn't 13:05 forbidden no doubt 13:08 all the better to keep us on our toes 13:10 sorry in federal 62 more seriously 13:19 Madison warned that when laws become 13:20 just a paper blizzard citizens are left 13:22 unable to know what the law isn't to 13:24 conform their conduct to it it's an 13:27 irony of the law that either too much or 13:28 too little can impair Liberty our aim 13:31 here has to be for a golden mean and it 13:33 may be worth asking today if we've 13:35 strayed too far from it 13:37 ok beyond the law itself there are other 13:40 ironies of ironies here emanating from 13:43 our law schools target-rich environment 13:47 you say well let's be kind of the 13:50 professors in the room and just take one 13:51 example in our zeal for high academic 13:54 standards we have developed a dreary 13:57 bill of particulars every law school 13:59 must satisfy the win ABA accreditation 14:02 law schools must employ a full-time 14:04 librarian they're not a part-timer they 14:08 must provide extensive tenure guarantees 14:10 they invite trouble if their student 14:12 faculty ratio reaches 32 one out the 14:15 same ratio found many in public 14:17 procol schools keep in mind too that 14:20 under ABA standards adjunct professors 14:22 with actual practice experience includes 14:25 me here account only as one-fifth of an 14:28 instructor 14:32 maybe they're onto something after all 14:34 might be worth pausing to ask whether 14:39 commands like these contribute enough to 14:41 learning to justify the barriers to 14:44 entry and the limits on access to 14:46 justice that they impose a legal 14:49 education can cause students today two 14:51 hundred thousand dollars that's on top 14:54 of an equally swollen some for an 14:57 undergraduate degree yet another a VA 14:59 accreditation requirement in England 15:03 students can earn a law degree in three 15:05 years is under graduates or in one year 15:08 of study after college 15:09 all of which must be followed by 15:11 on-the-job training and none of this is 15:14 thought to be a threat to the rule of 15:15 law there one might wonder whether the 15:18 sort of expensive an extensive 15:20 homogeneity we demand is essential to 15:22 the rule of law here 15:25 alright so far I've visited ironies 15:28 where the law aims at one virtue and 15:31 risks a corresponding vice but it seems 15:34 to me that the laws most remarkable 15:36 irony today comes from precisely the 15:39 opposite direction of ice that hints at 15:41 virtues in the rule of law today our 15:45 court our culture positively buzzes with 15:48 cynicism about the law are shared 15:51 profession and project so many see law 15:54 is the work of robe hacks and shiny 15:57 suited shills judges who ruled by 16:00 personal policy preference lawyers who 16:03 seek to razzle-dazzle them on this view 16:07 the only rule of law is a will to power 16:09 baby in a dark moment you've fallen prey 16:13 to doubts along these lines yourself but 16:17 i wonder whether the laws greatest irony 16:20 might just be the hope obscured by the 16:22 cynics shadow 16:24 I wonder whether cynicism about the law 16:26 flourishes so freely only because for 16:29 all its blemishes the rule of law in our 16:31 society is so fundamentally successful 16:34 and sometimes it's hard to see a 16:37 wonderful like David Foster Wallace's 16:39 fish surrounded by water 16:43 yet somehow unable to appreciate its 16:46 existence were like Chesterton's 16:48 man-on-the-street who's asked out of the 16:51 blue 16:51 why he prefers civilization to barbarism 16:53 and who has a hard time stammering out a 16:56 reply because the very multiplicity of 16:58 proof which should make reply easy and 17:01 overwhelming makes it impossible now the 17:05 cynicism surrounding our project our 17:07 profession is easy enough to see when 17:09 Supreme Court justices try to defend 17:11 laws a discipline when they explain 17:13 their jobs interpreting legal texts when 17:17 they evoke and echo the traditional 17:19 federalist 78 conception of a good judge 17:22 their mocked often viciously personally 17:26 leading voices call them deceiving 17:29 warned that behind their a nine-page 17:32 facades lurk cruising partisans even law 17:36 professors hurry to the microphone to 17:38 express complete discussed and accuse 17:40 them of perjury and intellectual 17:42 security actual quotes everyone if this 17:47 bleak picture I've sketched were 17:49 inaccurate one if I believe the judges 17:52 and lawyers regularly acted as shoes and 17:54 hacks and hang up the road i turn my 17:57 license but even accounting for my 18:00 native optimism i just don't think 18:02 that's what a life in the law it's about 18:04 heart i doubt you do either as a working 18:08 lawyer I saw time and again the 18:11 creativity intelligence hard work 18:13 applied to a legal problem can make a 18:16 profound difference in a client's life I 18:19 saw judges injuries that while human and 18:21 imperfect strove to hear earnestly and 18:24 decide and partially I never felt my 18:27 arguments to court for political ones 18:29 the ones based on rules of procedure and 18:31 evidence president standard interpretive 18:34 techniques the prosaic but vital stuff 18:37 of a life in the law as a judge now 47 18:41 whatever years I see colleagues everyday 18:46 striving to enforce the Constitution the 18:48 statutes passed by Congress the 18:50 president's to bind us 18:52 the contracts the parties adopted 18:54 sometimes they do so with quiet 18:56 misgivings about the wisdom of the 18:58 regulation addition sometimes was 19:00 concerned about their complicity in a 19:03 doubtful statute but enforcing the law 19:05 all the same believers that ours is 19:08 essentially adjust legal order now 19:11 that's not to suggest that we lawyers 19:13 and judges bear no blame for ages 19:15 cynicism about the law take our self 19:19 adopted Model Rules of Professional 19:20 Conduct they explained that the duty of 19:24 diligence we lawyers or clients and i 19:26 quote does not require the use of 19:29 offensive tactics or preclude treating 19:35 people with courtesy and respect now 19:40 how's that for professional promise to 19:42 the public 19:43 I view is sort of an ethical commandment 19:46 as I tell my students that is a lawyer 19:48 you should do unto others before they 19:49 can do unto you 19:50 no doubt we have to look hard in the 19:56 mirror when our professions reflected 19:58 image and popular culture is no longer 19:59 Atticus Finch but Saul Goodman of course 20:06 we make our share of mistakes to as my 20:08 now teenage daughters gleefully remind 20:10 me 20:11 donning a robe does not make me any 20:13 smarter but the road does mean something 20:16 and not just that I can hide the coffee 20:18 stains on my shirt 20:20 it serves as a reminder of what's 20:22 expected of us what Burke called the 20:24 cold neutrality of an impartial judge it 20:28 serves to is a reminder of the 20:29 relatively modest station as judges are 20:32 meant to occupy a Democratic Society in 20:35 other places judges wear scarlet and 20:37 Irma here we're told to buy our own 20:40 robes and I can attest the standard 20:43 choir outfit at the local uniform supply 20:45 stores a really good deal 20:47 ours is a judiciary of honest black 20:52 polyester in defending laws of coherent 20:57 discipline now I don't mean to suggest 20:59 that every hard legal question as a 21:01 single right answer the Sun platonic for 21:04 absolute truth exists for every crazy 21:06 naughty statute or oiled regulation if 21:09 only you possess superhuman power to 21:11 discern it i don't know about you but I 21:14 haven't met many judges resemble some 21:15 sort of legal Hercules well maybe my old 21:19 boss fire and light but how many of us 21:22 are going to lead the NFL in Russia 21:24 when a lawyer claims absolute 21:27 metaphysical certainty about the meaning 21:29 of some chain of ungrammatical 21:31 prepositional phrases tacked onto the 21:34 end of a run-on sentence buried in some 21:37 sprawling statutory subsection I start 21:41 worrying for questions like those my 21:44 only gospel is skepticism I try not to 21:47 make a dog out of it but to admit the 21:50 disagreement does and will always exist 21:53 over hard and find questions of law like 21:55 that doesn't mean our disagreements are 21:57 matters of personal will of politics 21:59 rather than an honest effort of making 22:01 sense of the legal materials at hand the 22:05 very first case i wrote for the tenth 22:06 circuit to reach the united states 22:08 supreme court involved a close question 22:10 statutory construction and the court 22:12 split 54 Justice Breyer wrote to affirm 22:16 he was joined by justices Thomas 22:19 Ginsburg Alito and Sotomayor Chief 22:25 Justice Roberts descended and he was 22:27 joined by Justice Stevens Scalia and 22:29 Kennedy that's a lineup that the public 22:32 doesn't often hear about but it's the 22:34 sort of thing that happens quietly day 22:37 in and day out in courts throughout our 22:38 country as you know but the legal cynic 22:41 overlooks the vast majority of disputes 22:44 coming to our courts are ones in which 22:45 all judges agree on the outcome intense 22:48 focus on a few cases where we disagree 22:50 suffers from a serious selection effect 22:52 problem over ninety percent of the 22:54 decisions issued by my quarter unanimous 22:56 and that's pretty typical of the federal 22:58 appellate courts forty percent of the 23:01 Supreme Court's cases are unanimous to 23:03 even though they face the toughest 23:05 assignments and nine not three judges 23:07 have to vote in every single dispute in 23:10 fact the Supreme Court's rate of descent 23:12 has been largely stable for 70 years 23:15 you don't hear that this despite the 23:18 fact that back in 1945 eight of the nine 23:20 justices have been appointed by a single 23:22 president and today's sitting justices 23:25 were appointed by five different 23:26 presidents even in those few cases where 23:30 we do disagree the cynic also fails to 23:33 appreciate the nature of our 23:34 disagreement we lawyers and judges may 23:37 dispute which two 23:38 was legal analysis are most appropriate 23:39 for ascertaining a statute's meaning we 23:43 may disagree over the order priority we 23:46 should assign two competing tools and 23:48 the consonants with the Constitution we 23:50 may even disagree over the results are 23:52 agreed tools yield in particular cases 23:54 these disagreements sometimes produce 23:56 familiar lineups but sometimes not 23:58 consider for example the debates between 24:01 Justice Scalia and Thomas over the role 24:03 of the rule entity or their 24:05 disagreements about the degree of 24:07 deference to President or some of the 24:09 debates you've heard today between and 24:11 among textless original lists these 24:15 debates are hugely consequential final 24:17 but their disputes of legal judgment not 24:20 disputes about politics or personal will 24:22 in the hardest cases as well many 24:26 constraints narrow the realm of 24:27 admissible dispute closed factual 24:30 records and adversarial process for 24:32 parties not courts usually determined 24:33 issues for decision standards of review 24:36 the command deference to finders of fact 24:38 the rules requiring us appellate George 24:40 judges to operate and collegial panels 24:42 where we listen learn from one another 24:44 the discipline of writing reason giving 24:46 opinions and the possibility of further 24:48 review to be sure these constraints 24:51 sometimes point in different directions 24:53 i'm not advocating a single right answer 24:55 to every problem but that shouldn't 24:57 obscure how those tools those 24:59 constraints often served to limit the 25:02 latitude available to all judges even 25:05 the cynics imagine judge would like 25:06 nothing more than imposes policy 25:08 preferences on everyone else 25:10 and on top of all that what today 25:12 appears to be a hard case tomorrow 25:14 becomes an easy one and accretion to 25:16 precedent as a new constraint on the 25:18 range of legally available options in 25:20 future cases now maybe maybe i do 25:24 exaggerate the cynicism that seems to 25:27 pervade today or maybe the cynicism i 25:29 see is real but endemic to every place 25:31 and every time and it seems something 25:33 fresh 25:34 only because this is our place in our 25:36 time after all lawyers and judges have 25:39 never been much loved Shakespeare wrote 25:42 the history of King Henry the sixth and 25:44 three parts in all those three plays 25:47 there's only a single joke 25:49 Jack cadence followers come to London 25:52 intent on rebellion and they offer their 25:55 first rallying cry let's kill all the 25:58 lawyers as in fact that he pretty much 26:01 did but but maybe just maybe the 26:06 cynicism about the rule of law whatever 26:08 the place whatever the time is its 26:10 greatest irony 26:12 maybe the cynicism is so apparent in our 26:14 society only because the rule of law 26:16 here for all its problems is so 26:19 successful 26:20 after all who can make so much fun of 26:23 the law without being very sure the law 26:25 makes it safe to do so don't our friends 26:30 our neighbors and we ourselves expect 26:33 and demand not just hope for justice 26:35 based on the rule of law our country 26:39 today shoulders an enormous burden the 26:43 most powerful nation on earth the most 26:45 obvious example of people struggling to 26:48 govern itself under the rule of law our 26:51 mistakes and missteps halted by those 26:54 who do not wish as well they're easy 26:57 enough to see even by those who do 26:59 neither should we try to shuffle our 27:01 problems under the rug 27:03 we have far too many to ignore today 27:06 the fact is the law can be a messy human 27:11 business a disappointment to those 27:13 seeking truth and some absolute sense 27:15 expecting more of the diviner oh except 27:18 for those of us wearing the robes and 27:21 it's easy enough to spot examples where 27:23 the laws ironies are truly better but it 27:26 seems to me that we shouldn't well so 27:29 much on the better that we never savor 27:31 the sweet it is after all our shared 27:34 profession to which we devoted our 27:36 professional lives the law that permits 27:38 us to resolve their disputes without 27:40 resort to violence to organize our 27:42 affairs with some measure of confidence 27:44 is through the careful application of 27:47 the laws existing premises were able to 27:49 adapt and generate new solutions to 27:51 changing social coordination problems as 27:53 they emerge and when done well the law 27:56 permits us to achieve all this in a 27:58 deliberative non-discriminatory and 28:00 transparent 28:00 way those are no small things here then 28:05 is the irony I'd like to leave you with 28:07 tonight if sometimes the cynic and all 28:10 of us fails to see our nation successes 28:14 when it comes to the rule of law 28:16 maybe it's because we're like David 28:17 Foster Wallace's fish was oblivious to 28:20 life-giving water in which it swims 28:22 maybe we overlooked our nation's success 28:25 living under the rule of law only 28:28 because for all our faults that success 28:31 is so obvious it's sometimes hard to see 28:34 thank you  

Starting at the Bright Angel trailhead in the Grand Canyon National Park, Ted Olson and his daughter hiked rim to rim and back again without camping. It took them 32 hours to hike the 47 miles gaining and losing over 21,000 ft of elevation. This is not an adventure for the unprepared because if you […] The post Rim to Rim to Rim in the Grand Canyon with Ted Olson : TPZ 116 appeared first on The Pursuit Zone.

Wayne Winkler, host of Community Forum, talks with Dr. Ted Olson from the Department of Appalachian Studies at ETSU and Shannon Castillo, Director of Redevelopment on The Washington County Economic Development Council, about The Johnson City Sessions.

Already 2014 has been a huge year in the freedom to marry movement. Advocates have won 16 out of 16 federal and state court decisions across the country.  Polls show support at an all time high of 59%.  But, although it may seem that way,  this didn’t happen overnight. For over 30 years many have been in the trenches carrying the fight.  People like Evan Wolfson, and Bruce Bawer and Jonathan Rauch and Andrew Sullivan provided much of the early intellectual heft of the movement.  And then, when it came time for the legal battles to escalate into the federal courts,  one of the most unlikely partnerships in civil-rights history, David Boies and Ted Olson - two of Americas super lawyers, who squared off against each other in Bush v Gore, teamed up to fight California’s ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8, — all the way to the Supreme Court.A year after their victory the have chronicled it, in Redeeming the Dream: The Case for Marriage EqualityMy conversation with Ted Olson and David Boies:

Ted Olson is a Professor of Appalachian Studies at East Tennessee State University.  He has published a collection of poems called Revelations.  This is a magnificent collection of poetry that touches on spirituality, nature, family, and music.  Maurice Manning writes that Revelations "...sweeps broadly, gathering family history, displaced people, the natural world, religion, small towns, solitude, and love into a single tide washing into shore."   Dr. Olson brought his banjo and his poetry.  Join us!

Ted Olson teaches Appalachian Studies at East Tennessee State University.   He has been nominated for three Grammy Awards.  Two nominations in 2012 for The Bristol Sessions 1927-1928 - The Big Bang of Country Music and another nomination in 2013 for Old-Time Smoky Mountain Music: 34 Historic Songs, Ballads and Instrumentals Recorded in the Great Smoky Mountains by 'Song Catcher' Joseph S. Hall.   He just produced The Johnson City Sessions, rare recordings made in Johnson City in 1928.    Dr. Olson talks to me about these recordings and he brought his banjo to share some of this great Appalachian music!

David Boies and Ted Olson talk with Bill Moyers about the Supreme Court's contentious Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 and the court's recent ruling in the Citizens United case.