Podcasts about Thurgood Marshall

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, 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: 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 at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. 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

This Day in Legal History: George Carlin's Seven Dirty WordsOn July 3, 1978, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark First Amendment decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, ruling 5-4 that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could reprimand a radio station for airing George Carlin's infamous “Seven Dirty Words” comedy routine. The case arose after WBAI, a New York radio station, broadcast Carlin's monologue during afternoon hours, prompting a listener complaint to the FCC. The FCC responded with a formal reprimand, sparking a legal battle over the boundaries of free speech and government regulation.The Court held that the FCC had the authority to regulate indecent content on public airwaves, particularly during hours when children were likely to be listening. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized the unique pervasiveness of broadcast media and its accessibility to minors as justification for the ruling. The decision marked one of the first times the Supreme Court allowed government regulation of speech based on content, outside of traditional obscenity laws.Dissenting justices, including William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, warned that the decision posed a threat to free expression and could chill controversial or creative speech. The ruling did not criminalize Carlin's routine or ban such speech outright, but it set a precedent that the government could impose content-based restrictions on broadcasters without violating the First Amendment.This case would come to define the limits of “indecent” speech in broadcast media for decades, reinforcing the idea that First Amendment protections are not absolute in all contexts. The decision became a cornerstone in the ongoing tension between free speech rights and government regulation of media.Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to regain influence over the Supreme Court this term, joining the majority in 96% of argued cases—dissenting in only two of 58 decisions. Legal scholars, however, caution that this high rate doesn't definitively prove Roberts is steering outcomes. Some suggest that his tendency to vote with the majority might reflect a strategic desire to maintain influence or unity, rather than genuine agreement.Roberts, along with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, now forms a pivotal center bloc on the ideologically divided court, often determining case outcomes between the court's conservative and liberal wings. These three justices were all in the majority for the ten most contentious 6-3 rulings this term, shaping major decisions on issues like LGBTQ curriculum, gender-affirming care, and administrative power.Observers note that Roberts' leadership this term was marked by a careful assignment of majority opinions, often to maintain consensus among conservatives. For example, he gave the opinion in Trump v. CASA to Barrett, whose more moderate reasoning helped avoid a fractured ruling. Notably, Roberts wrote no separate concurrences or dissents, reinforcing the view that he is trying to project cohesion.However, consensus was not the norm this term. The court split significantly in one-third of its cases, and unanimous rulings fell to 43%. Many of the most ideologically charged outcomes favored conservatives, suggesting that even with Roberts at the center, the court remains deeply right-leaning. Additionally, significant decisions from the court's emergency docket further indicate the direction of future jurisprudence.Votes Suggest Chief Justice Regains Control of ‘Roberts Court'A federal judge has blocked parts of a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) initiated by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but the ruling does not require the reinstatement of fired workers. The decision in New York v. Kennedy found that 19 states and Washington, D.C. are likely to succeed in their claims that Kennedy's reduction-in-force and reorganization—part of his “Make America Healthy Again” plan—were unlawful. The injunction halts further implementation but stops short of restoring the affected employees, leaving unresolved the harms states allege, including disrupted services and surveillance functions.Legal experts point out the ambiguity in the ruling, noting it restricts further actions by HHS but does not mandate concrete remedies such as bringing employees back. Some warn that continuing to keep workers off the job could itself violate the injunction. The injunction is limited to four HHS divisions, not the full federal workforce affected.The ruling requires HHS to file a compliance update by July 11 and address how the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. CASA—which limits the scope of national injunctions—may influence the outcome. HHS has multiple potential responses: appealing the ruling, waiting for developments in a related Supreme Court case, or restarting the process through proper legislative and budgetary channels.RFK Jr.'s Overhaul of HHS Blocked But Workers Won't Return NowA federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, ruling that Trump exceeded his legal authority. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss found that Trump's January 2025 proclamation, which barred migrants deemed part of an “invasion” from seeking asylum, violated both federal immigration law and the Constitution. The 128-page opinion emphasized that neither Congress nor the Constitution gave the president power to bypass existing asylum laws, even in the face of immigration challenges.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the lawsuit on behalf of advocacy groups and asylum seekers, arguing the ban contradicted U.S. and international legal standards. Moss's ruling temporarily blocks enforcement of the policy and allows 14 days for the Trump administration to appeal. The decision applies broadly to a certified class of affected migrants, sidestepping recent Supreme Court limitations on national injunctions.Trump's policy built on but exceeded a similar effort by President Biden in 2024, which also faced judicial setbacks. The ruling marks another legal rebuke to Trump's aggressive immigration stance since returning to office. The administration maintains the judge overstepped and vows to appeal. Meanwhile, civil liberties groups hail the decision as a necessary check on executive overreach and a reaffirmation of asylum protections.US judge blocks Trump asylum ban at US-Mexico border, says he exceeded authority | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in his effort to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), challenging a lower court's ruling that blocked their dismissal. The commissioners—Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr.—were appointed by President Biden and make up the majority of the five-member board. They were fired in May, prompting a lawsuit that argued the president lacks authority to remove commissioners of independent agencies without cause.A federal judge, Matthew Maddox, sided with the commissioners, stating Trump had overstepped his authority and finding no misconduct to justify their termination. The Justice Department claims Trump acted within his constitutional powers, asserting that the commissioners were obstructing his policy agenda. The administration is seeking to pause the reinstatement order while the case proceeds.The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to halt the lower court ruling, emphasizing that Congress lawfully limited presidential removal powers in this context. Trump's team now wants the Supreme Court to override that decision, citing a recent high court ruling that allowed Trump to temporarily remove members of a federal labor board in a similar dispute.This case adds to a growing list of legal battles testing the limits of executive power since Trump returned to office. It also raises broader constitutional questions about the balance of power between the president and independent regulatory agencies.Trump asks Supreme Court to allow removal of consumer product safety commissioners | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

America is turning 250. And we're throwing a yearlong celebration of the greatest country on Earth. The greatest? Yes. The greatest. We realize that's not a popular thing to say these days. Americans have a way of taking this country for granted: a Gallup poll released earlier this week shows that American pride has reached a new low. And the world at large, which is wealthier and freer than it has ever been in history thanks to American power and largesse, often resents us. We get it. As journalists, we spend most of our time finding problems and exposing them. It's what the job calls for. But if you only focus on the negatives, you get a distorted view of reality. As America hits this milestone birthday, it's worthwhile to take a moment to step back and look closely at where we actually are—and the reality of life in America today compared to other times and places. That reality is pretty spectacular. Could Thomas Jefferson and the men gathered in Philadelphia who wrote down the words that made our world—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”—ever have imagined what their Declaration of Independence would bring? The Constitution. The end of slavery—and the defeat of Hitler. Astonishing wealth and medical breakthroughs. Silicon Valley. The most powerful military in the world. The moon landing. Hollywood. The Hoover Dam. The Statue of Liberty (a gift from France). Actual liberation (a thing we gave France). Humphrey Bogart and Tom Hanks. Josephine Baker and Beyoncé. Hot dogs. Corn dogs. American Chinese food. American Italian food. The Roosevelts and the Kennedys. The Barrymores and the Fondas. Winston Churchill (his mom was from Brooklyn). The Marshall Plan and Thurgood Marshall. Star Wars. Missile-defense shields. Baseball. Football. The military-industrial complex. Freedom of religion. UFO cults. Television. The internet. The Pill. The Pope. The automobile, the airplane, and AI. Jazz and the blues. The polio vaccine and GLP-1s, the UFC and Dolly Parton. The list goes on because it's really, truly endless. Ours is a country where you can hear 800 languages spoken in Queens, drive two hours and end up among the Amish in Pennsylvania. We are 330 million people, from California to New York Island, gathered together as one. Each of those 330 million will tell you that ours is not a perfect country. But we suspect most of them would agree that their lives would not be possible without it. So for the next 12 months, we're going to toast to our freedoms on the page, on this podcast and in real life. And we're doing it the Free Press way: by delving into all of it—the bad and the good and the great, the strange and the wonderful and the wild. And today—on America's 249th birthday—we're kicking off this yearlong event with none other than Akhil Reed Amar. Akhil has a unique understanding of this country—and our Constitution. Akhil is a Democrat who testified on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh, is a member of The Federalist Society, who is pro-choice but also anti-Roe—and these seeming contradictions make him perfectly suited to answer questions about the political and legal polarization we find ourselves in today. Akhil is a constitutional law professor at Yale and the author of the brilliant book The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760–1840. He also hosts the podcast Amarica's Constitution, and you might recognize his name from his work in The Atlantic. I ask him about the unique history that created our founding document, the state of the country, our political polarization, the American legal system, and what this country means to him. The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It is meaningful and instructive that the Legal Defense Fund, which has championed racial justice at the voting booth, in education, housing and in the criminal justice system since its founding by Thurgood Marshall in 1940, is on the frontlines today, winning legal victories in a perilous moment for American democracy. LDF is defending the hard-won civil rights of Black Americans against racially imposed barriers, laid out in Project 2025 and implemented by President Trump and the 119th Congress. As LDF Associate Director-Counsel Todd Cox explains on this episode of Power Station, Congress has abdicated its responsibility as a check on the executive and the U.S. Department of Justice has rejected its mandate to enforce civil rights laws, leaving the LDF and its sister organizations to carry out the fight in the courts. LDF brings the expertise and infrastructure needed to litigate, advocate in state legislatures and on Capitol Hill, organize in impacted communities and educate the public and policymakers about what is at stake. Todd, a consummate civil rights litigator, looks to his grandparents, who fled autocracy and racial violence in the south, as his inspiration and guide. Hear him and share this powerful story.

3pm: Guest - Army Veteran, West Point Graduate and Cyber Security Firm Executive Steven Butler // Breaking down what’s next after Israel’s attack on Iran // Today in History // 1967 - Thurgood Marshall nominated to Supreme Court // The Worst Media Takes of the Week! 

6pm: Guest - Army Veteran, West Point Graduate and Cyber Security Firm Executive Steven Butler // Breaking down what’s next after Israel’s attack on Iran // Today in History // 1967 - Thurgood Marshall nominated to Supreme Court // The Worst Media Takes of the Week! 

The show opens with "Legacy," reflecting on the enduring impact of Brian Wilson—his music, perhaps, a soundtrack to generations—and the warmth of Father’s Day, a moment to honor familial bonds.The *Talk Law Radio Show* crackled to life, diving headfirst into the legal undercurrents shaping the nation. The host leaned into the mic, unraveling a tapestry of "hidden legal issues" that pulsed beneath the headlines. First up: deportations, a lightning rod of controversy. The air grew heavy as cases like *DHS v. Svitlana*, *DVD v. DHS*, *Garcia v. Noem*, *A.A.R.P. v. Trump*, and *Trump v. CASA* were dissected, each a battleground over borders and belonging. The conversation shifted to free speech, where voices clash over what can be said and where. Protests, vibrant and volatile, spilled into the discussion, followed by the darker edge of riots and their legal fallout. The National Guard’s role surfaced, tethered to a pivotal court case that raised questions of power and order. As the segment closed, the host paused to honor Flag Day, its symbolism woven into the fabric of the nation, before touching on the spectacle of military parades and their deeper implications. The mood softened as the show turned to "Sinners and Saints," a segment celebrating Thurgood Marshall’s trailblazing nomination as the first African American Supreme Court Justice in 1967. His words echoed through the studio: “We will only attain freedom if we learn to appreciate what is different, and muster the courage to discover what is fundamentally the same.” The quote hung in the air, a call to unity in fractured times. As the broadcast faded, listeners were left with a sense of the law’s vast reach, touching everything from courtrooms to culture, from past heroes to present struggles. As you consider the division, conflict, and danger in politics today as well as man and women's ability with God's help to rise above, heal, and find consensus think about your legacy. Chat online at www.MarquardtLawFirm.com or call 210-530-4278 to schedule an appointment to get your legal affairs in order and design your great legacy. Attorney Todd Marquardt brings you insightful topics every Saturday morning, but he's not stopping there! Join Todd every Sunday afternoon at 4:30pm for a special bonus segment! He addresses trending and specific topics in more detail with a professional perspective. The mission of Talk Law Radio is to help you discover your legal issue blind spots by listening to me talk about the law on the radio. The state bar of Texas is the state agency that governs attorney law licenses. The State Bar wants attorneys to inform the public about the law but does not want us to attempt to solve your individual legal problems upon the basis of general information. Instead, contact an attorney like Todd A. Marquardt at Marquardt Law Firm, P.C. to discuss your specific facts and circumstances of your unique situation. Leave a legacy that makes a positive impact on people's lives Chat online at MarquardtLawFirm.com to schedule an appointment to help you create a legally enforceable last will, living trust, or tax protected inheritance plan. Tell a friend what this show is about discovering hidden legal issue blind spots like in business and estates and elder law. Today's hidden legal issue blind spot is "Citizenship." Subscribe to the Talk Law Radio YouTube channel to watch the show in four separate segments. Like & Subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/@talklawradio3421 Listen here! www.TalkLawRadio.com Work with Todd! https://marquardtlawfirm.com/ Join attorney Todd Marquardt every week for exciting law talk on Talk Law Radio! Follow Shannon Salmon-Haas! Instagram: @shannonrobertasanantonio Tik Tok: @shannonrobertasa Facebook: @Shannon Roberta San AntonioSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this day in 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to the U.S. Supreme Court, marking a historic moment in American history. A brilliant legal mind and longtime NAACP attorney, Marshall successfully argued key civil rights cases before the Court, including Brown v. Board of Education. He later served 24 years as a justice, championing civil rights, abortion access, and the rights of the accused. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's June 12. This day in 1967, President Johnson nominates Thurgood Marshall as the first Black Supreme Court justice. Jody, NIki, and Kellie discuss Marshall's stories legal career up until this point -- but why Johnson was still taking a major risk in putting him forward.Sign up for our newsletter! Get your hands on This Day merch!Find out more at thisdaypod.comThis Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX.Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories.If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.comGet in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypodOur team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Guests: Former Sen. Jon Tester, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Jon Lovett, Betsey StevensonAmerica's top oligarch versus the Trump agenda. Tonight: the latest chaos after Elon Musk declares war on the president's "disgusting abomination.” And Sen. Bernie Sanders on the life and death stakes of 11 million people losing health insurance. Plus, growing fears Trump allies are bending government data to fit the party line. And new outrage over Pete Hegseth's decision to strip Harriet Tubman, Thurgood Marshall and Harvey Milk's names off of U.S. Navy vessels.   Want more of Chris? Download and subscribe to his podcast, “Why Is This Happening? The Chris Hayes podcast” wherever you get your podcasts.

Today's case hits on a sensitive topic for many, the racial hate in the United States, specifically, Mississippi. We all know about the Civil Right's Movement. In school we all learned about Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr, Thurgood Marshall, Malcom X and many others. One name that should also be on this list is Emmett Till and his mother, Mamie. Emmett Till was a 14-year-old child who was kidnapped from his uncle's home in the middle of the night, then he suffered unimaginable torture at the hands of racial hate fueled men for four hours before they murdered Emmett in August 1955. Emmett's mother, Mamie, fought to retrieve her son's remains from Mississippi officials. She held a viewing of her son's mutilated body for several days which drew National attention and she travelled with the NAACP to tell her son's story. Listen to today's case to hear about the brutal murder of an innocent young man and the atrocities that followed. Thanks again to loyal listener Paulina G. for helping to bring attention to Emmett Till's story! -A&CSources:From Slavery to Segregation | Equal Justice InitiativeCalifornia Eagle Edition January 12 1956Remembering Emmett Till – US Civil Rights TrailCivil Rights Movement 1955-1965: Mississippi & Freedom SummerEmmett Till (U.S. National Park Service)84 Interesting Facts About Mississippi - The Fact FileSex and Race in 1955 Mississippi | American Experience | Official Site | PBSEmmett Till | Death, Mother, Grave, & Facts | Britannica

Welcome to a special edition of The Game Changing Attorney Podcast, celebrating five years of game changing conversations, industry-shaping insights, and bold leadership in the legal world. To mark this milestone, we're kicking off a retrospective series that dives into the minds of the most forward-thinking, trailblazing leaders we've featured over the years. In this episode, we're taking a look back to highlight the strategies and decisions that helped our top guests carve their own paths to success. There's no single way to build a thriving law firm — but the stories you'll hear are proof that with the right mindset, consistent execution, and belief in your vision, success is within reach. You'll hear from: Eric Chaffin: Co-founder of Chaffin Luhana, a nationally recognized law firm. Known for his work as a federal prosecutor and his dedication to using his experiences to motivate and help others through his legal practice. Rex Elliott: A prominent attorney at Cooper Elliott, a firm known for representing the underdog and making significant impacts in trial law. His journey is fueled by connecting his past experiences to achieve success and aid others. Randi McGinn: An accomplished trial lawyer, recognized for her approach to "transformative law," where the focus is on making impactful changes beyond just monetary settlements in cases. Laura Wasser: A top divorce attorney in the country, known for her discretion and ability to handle high-profile celebrity divorce cases with a focus on realistic expectations and professionalism. Ben Crump: A nationally renowned civil rights attorney, often involved in high-profile cases that address systemic injustices, inspired by Thurgood Marshall and motivated by advocating for equal opportunities and justice. Whether you're an attorney seasoned in the courtroom or a burgeoning leader in the industry, you'll find valuable perspectives and actionable insights to fuel your own success story. Join us as we uncover the diverse strategies and mindsets that propel legal visionaries to redefine what it means to lead, inspire, and succeed. ---- Show Notes: 00:00 – Introduction: 5 Years of Legal Game Changers 02:05 – Eric Chaffin: Overcoming Trauma and Building a Mission-Driven Firm 10:44 – Doing Good by Doing Right: Building Chaffin Luhana on Values 15:45 – Rex Elliott: From Construction Sites to Courtrooms 21:42 – Fighting for Underdogs and Finding Purpose in Trial Work 27:58 – Randi McGinn: Pioneering Transformative Law with Every Case 35:36 – Laura Wasser: Navigating High-Profile Divorce with Discretion and Integrity 43:59 – Balancing Emotional Support and Legal Strategy in Celebrity Cases 50:27 – Ben Crump: Finding Hope and Justice Through Legacy and Law ---- Links & Resources: Randi McGinn Rex Elliott Eric Chaffin Ben Crump Laura Wasser ---- Do you love this podcast and want to see more game changing content? Subscribe to our YouTube channel. ---- Past guests on The Game Changing Attorney Podcast include David Goggins, John Morgan, Alex Hormozi, Randi McGinn, Kim Scott, Chris Voss, Kevin O'Leary, Laura Wasser, John Maxwell, Mark Lanier, Robert Greene, and many more. ---- If you enjoyed this episode, you may also like: 328. Sherry Stewart Deutschmann — Transform Your Business with Bold, People-First Leadership 251. Alex Hormozi — The Power of Humility in Achieving Entrepreneurial Success 279. AMMA — Building Trust Through Authentic Leadership

Seguro has escuchado últimamente que en Estados Unidos hay una crisis constitucional.Y es cierto: las órdenes ejecutivas del presidente Donald Trump han desafiado el sistema jurídico del país.Durante las últimas semanas, hemos visto que tribunales de todo el país —incluida la Corte Suprema— han bloqueado algunas de sus políticas por considerarlas contrarias a la ley.El panorama judicial en Estados Unidos es un verdadero caos, y por eso invité al profesor Richard Pildes, de la Universidad de Nueva York, para analizar lo que está ocurriendo.Pildes nos habló de su experiencia como secretario del emblemático juez Thurgood Marshall y como miembro del Comité Presidencial sobre la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos, en el que analizó los retos que enfrenta este tribunal con miras a una posible reforma.Además, conversamos sobre los posibles escenarios si Trump decide no acatar las sentencias emitidas por los tribunales.

Episode 103: The Black Male Teenager Host: Dewhitt L. BinghamBingham is podcasting solo in this episode. Of the 103 episodes, he has rarely taken the opportunity to speak about a subject that is near and dear to his heart. He takes the time to speak about the black male teenager.  Easter SundayThe influence of Christ JesusSingle mothers and fathersParents who remain together to care for their childAmari LeeGarrick Dickerson Jr.Integrity Deliverance ChurchCriminal Justice an interdisciplinary fieldBooker T. WashingtonWEB DuboisDr. Martin Luther King Jr.Thurgood MarshallPresident Clinton's Housing Act of 1996President Nixon's Employment and Training Act of 1973Heartland Community College's Film Festival“Chicago at a Crossroads”McLean County Youth BuildWhat I'd like to see the Trump administration accomplishYou can listen to the JFA Podcast Show wherever you get your podcast or by clicking on one of the links below.https://dlbspodcast.buzzsprout.com    https://blog.feedspot.com/social_justice_podcasts/    https://peculiarbooks.org   Dr. Charles Bell “Suspended”https://www.amazon.com/Suspended-Punishment-Violence-Failure-School/dp/1421442469 Also if you are interested in exercise and being healthy check out the Top 20 Triathlon Podcasts.https://blog.feedspot.com/triathlon_podcasts/ Email Address: dewhitt.bingham@peculiarbooks.org 

In a move that has escaped the scrutiny of major media outlets, Arlington National Cemetery's website has quietly removed sections highlighting the contributions of Black, Hispanic, and female veterans. Gone are the pages that celebrated the lives of trailblazers like Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, General Colin Powell, and the intrepid Tuskegee Airmen. The narratives of valor from the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion—the only all-Black, all-female Women's Army Corps unit to serve overseas during World War II—have been stripped from view. Even the stories of pioneering women such as First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and World War II combat photographer Marguerite Higgins have been erased.​

Monday, March 17th, 2025Today, Chuck Schumer caves on the continuing resolution and leaves House Democrats in the lurch; Trump and Marco Rubio have defied Judge Boasberg's temporary restraining order barring the administration from deporting people under the Alien Enemies Act; a second judge orders thousand of probationary employees to be reinstated; classified U.S. intelligence reports cast doubt on Vladimir Putin's willingness to end the war against Ukraine; Newsmax has settled with Smartmatic for $40M; Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow him to end birthright citizenship; Arlington National Cemetery has scrubbed links about black and female veterans; Trump and Netanyahu look to move Palestinians to Africa; Trump has shut down 7 agencies including Voice of America; a Long Island man is the first to be cured of sickle cell anemia; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Guest: Felipe Torres MedinaAmerica, Let Me In – Abrams BooksFelipe Torres Medina.comFelipe Torres Medina (@felipetmedina.bsky.social) — BlueskyFelipe Torres Medina (@felipetmedinaa) -  TwitterThank You, Delete MeFor 20% off your DeleteMe subscription go to Deleteme.com/dailybeans code dailybeans.Thank You, Pique LifeGet 20% off on the Radiant Skin Duo, plus a FREE starter kit at Piquelife.com/dailybeans.Stories:AP Exclusive: US and Israel look to Africa for moving Palestinians uprooted from Gaza | AP NewsPutin still intends Ukraine domination, U.S. intelligence reports say - The Washington PostNewsmax reveals it agreed to pay Smartmatic $40M in settlement with the voting machine company | NBC NewsSecond judge orders thousands of probationary employees fired by Trump to be reinstated | NBC NewsTrump asks Supreme Court to curb judges' power to block policies nationwide - POLITICOLong Island man is first in New York history to be cured of sickle cell anemia | CBS NewsChuck Schumer's stumbles leave Democrats without a message | NBC NewsArlington Cemetery website removes links about Black, female veterans - The Washington PostUS deports hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members despite court order | BBCTrump Orders Gutting of 7 Agencies, Including Voice of America's Parent - The New York TimesGood Trouble:Buy the book, read it and put in in your local little library - America, Let Me In – Abrams Books Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Check out other MSW Media podcastsShows - MSW MediaCleanup On Aisle 45 podSubscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on SubstackThe BreakdownFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaAllison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyShare your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/From The Good NewsSupreme Court Justice William O. DouglasWon Over: Reflections of a Federal Judge on His Journey from Jim Crow Mississippi@biomadd_art - IGDOGE Privacy Act Requests - Jamie Raskin for CongressBerks County Democratic CommitteeHand Off!! APRIL 5TH. Nationwide protests  Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Kisha A. Brown is a passionate civil rights attorney and the founder/CEO of Justis Connection, an online platform designed to connect lawyers of color with communities needing legal resources.    She has extensive experience across the federal, state, local, nonprofit, and private sectors and focuses on civil rights, police reform, and empowerment.   Kisha realizes that people often ask for legal referrals, but the process is inefficient, requiring multiple steps and often not connecting people of color with lawyers of color.    Kisha emphasizes that many people, especially from marginalized communities, lack access to legal professionals and knowledge about their rights.   Justis Connection helps people find the right lawyer for their specific legal needs, considering factors like language needs, budget, and proximity to public transportation.   Kisha connects her work to the legacies of influential Black leaders like Thurgood Marshall, believing that lawyers of color are responsible for serving their communities.   In addition, references Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "The Drum Major Instinct" speech, emphasizing that leadership is about serving others.    Website: Justis Connection  LinkedIn: Kisha A. Brown, Esq.   Check out our CEO Hack Buzz Newsletter–our premium newsletter with hacks and nuggets to level up your organization. Sign up HERE.  I AM CEO Handbook Volume 3 is HERE and it's FREE. Get your copy here: http://cbnation.co/iamceo3. Get the 100+ things that you can learn from 1600 business podcasts we recorded. Hear Gresh's story, learn the 16 business pillars from the podcast, find out about CBNation Architects and why you might be one and so much more. Did we mention it was FREE? Download it today!

What if we are asking the wrong questions when selecting American judges? Mark Tushnet thinks our current criteria might be off. “We should look for judges who are likely to display good judgment in their rulings … and we shouldn't care whether they have a good theory about how to interpret the Constitution as a whole—and maybe we should worry a bit if they think they have such a theory,” the Harvard Law professor writes in his new book, Who Am I to Judge? Judicial Craft Versus Constitutional Theory. In looking at what qualities were shared by great Supreme Court justices, Tushnet identified five he thinks were of especial importance: Longevity and age Location in political time Prior experience in public life NOT A JUDGE (“I put this in capital letters because it's common today to think that justices have to have been judges,” Tushnet wrote. He doesn't see having a past judicial career as disqualifying, but points out that many great justices were not sitting judges when appointed.) Intellectual curiosity In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Tushnet and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how he thinks people should be evaluated for judicial positions; his experience as a clerk for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; what makes a well-crafted opinion; and why he thinks any overarching theory about the Constitution will fall short.

What if we are asking the wrong questions when selecting American judges? Mark Tushnet thinks our current criteria might be off. “We should look for judges who are likely to display good judgment in their rulings … and we shouldn't care whether they have a good theory about how to interpret the Constitution as a whole—and maybe we should worry a bit if they think they have such a theory,” the Harvard Law professor writes in his new book, Who Am I to Judge? Judicial Craft Versus Constitutional Theory. In looking at what qualities were shared by great Supreme Court justices, Tushnet identified five he thinks were of especial importance: Longevity and age Location in political time Prior experience in public life NOT A JUDGE (“I put this in capital letters because it's common today to think that justices have to have been judges,” Tushnet wrote. He doesn't see having a past judicial career as disqualifying, but points out that many great justices were not sitting judges when appointed.) Intellectual curiosity In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Tushnet and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how he thinks people should be evaluated for judicial positions; his experience as a clerk for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; what makes a well-crafted opinion; and why he thinks any overarching theory about the Constitution will fall short. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What if we are asking the wrong questions when selecting American judges? Mark Tushnet thinks our current criteria might be off. “We should look for judges who are likely to display good judgment in their rulings … and we shouldn't care whether they have a good theory about how to interpret the Constitution as a whole—and maybe we should worry a bit if they think they have such a theory,” the Harvard Law professor writes in his new book, Who Am I to Judge? Judicial Craft Versus Constitutional Theory. In looking at what qualities were shared by great Supreme Court justices, Tushnet identified five he thinks were of especial importance: Longevity and age Location in political time Prior experience in public life NOT A JUDGE (“I put this in capital letters because it's common today to think that justices have to have been judges,” Tushnet wrote. He doesn't see having a past judicial career as disqualifying, but points out that many great justices were not sitting judges when appointed.) Intellectual curiosity In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Tushnet and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how he thinks people should be evaluated for judicial positions; his experience as a clerk for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; what makes a well-crafted opinion; and why he thinks any overarching theory about the Constitution will fall short.

Episode 100: A Social Justice Conversation With JulianaGuest: Juliana Bingham and Dewhitt Bingham IIThis month's podcast is centered around HBCUs, Thurgood Marshall, and The Brown vs. The Board of Education case. Two of my favorite people in the world are guests, my only granddaughter (an emerging teenager), Juliana Bingham, and my only son, Dewhitt L. Bingham II. We discuss the following: Where they were born and raised Current education statusDewhitt's current career and backgroundHBCU Brown v. Board of EducationThurgood MarshallRace RelationThe City of FestusHealthcareWomen's rightsAffordable educationAnd what they'd like to see the next administration accomplishYou can listen to the JFA Podcast Show wherever you get your podcast or by clicking on one of the links below.https://dlbspodcast.buzzsprout.com     https://blog.feedspot.com/social_justice_podcasts/    https://peculiarbooks.org   Also if you are interested in exercise and being healthy check out the Top 20 Triathlon Podcasts.https://blog.feedspot.com/triathlon_podcasts/ 

Rohan Grey, who taught us to understand money as a creature of law, is back for his tenth appearance on Macro N Cheese. Steve and Rohan dissect the humor and horror of the political landscape. They make a realistic assessment of the Biden administration and look at figures like Elon Musk and Ramaswamy as part of a new wave of governance setting out to undermine the fabric of federal institutions. The conversation touches on the absurdity of contemporary American politics, where a ‘meme president' can emerge amidst a cacophony of discontent and confusion. All this against a background of imperialist atrocities and genocide. As always, Rohan warns against viewing political and economic developments through a simplistic lens and suggests a nuanced understanding of these realities within their historical context Rohan looks at the alternating and sometimes contradictory positions taken by conservatives and progressives on several issues. Judicial activism was once identified with the left – Thurgood Marshall, for example. Today judicial activism is synonymous with Samuel Alito. What has it meant to conservatives in the past to have an independent Fed? What does it mean today? In what ways do Trump's interests align with Main Street instead of Wall Street? Part of the episode is devoted to cryptocurrency. Rohan explains why he refers to 2024 as the ‘crypto election' and then talks about some of the fears and predictions about the Trump administration. Instead of comparing bitcoin to the US dollar, Rohan suggests we compare it to oil: We're not talking about holding Bitcoin. We're not talking about internalizing Bitcoin into the payments architecture of the United States government. We are talking about taking an interest in stabilizing the price of something that is otherwise functioning as a commodity. No Rohan Grey episode is complete without a couple of references to popular culture. Speaking of the broader issue of crytocurrency, he says it's as if the digital dollar looked in the mirror and fell in love with itself. He compares it to a certain episode of Seinfeld. Rohan Grey is an assistant professor at Willamette University College of Law, where he teaches contracts, business associations, financial institutions, and a seminar on law, money and technology. Find his work and an expanded bio at rohangrey.net @rohangrey on Twitter

What a CreepSeason 27, Episode 6Ken StarrKen Starr was the independent prosecutor who basically wasted millions in taxpayer dollars to investigate President Bill Clinton. He's also been on the wrong side of history when it comes to gay marriage, religious freedom, and sexual abuse. Over the course of his career, he argued 36 times before the Supreme Court.Oh, and he mentored Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Thanks a lot, creep.Sources for this episode:JezebelThe GuardianThe Huffington PostInvestopediaNew York TimesNew York TimesNPRPajibaPBSRolling StoneWikipediaWikipediaBe sure to follow us on social media. But don't follow us too closely … don't be a creep about it! Subscribe to us on Apple PodcastsFacebook: Join the private group! Instagram @WhatACreepPodcastBlueSky https://bsky.app/profile/whatacreep.bsky.social Visit our Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/whatacreepEmail: WhatACreepPodcast@gmail.com We've got merch here! https://whatacreeppodcast.threadless.com/#Our website is www.whatacreeppodcast.com Our logo was created by Claudia Gomez-Rodriguez. Follow her on Instagram @ClaudInCloud

Today I'm taking a look at three very different men with one identical last name - the Marshalls. Each one of them was critical to our nation, and might have become president under different circumstances. I'll investigate and rate each one: John Marshall, Federalist Chief Justice of the Supreme Court George C. Marshall, General and Secretary of State during WWII Thurgood Marshall, first Black justice of the Supreme Court

This episode explores the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which in 1954 declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. It discusses the historical context, key figures like Thurgood Marshall, and the case's lasting impact on the civil rights movement and American society. The episode highlights the ongoing struggle for racial equality initiated by this pivotal decision.

Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson has always aspired to be a federal judge. In fact, the newest appointed associate justice of the United States Supreme Court wrote in her application to Harvard University that she wished “to attend Harvard Law School as I believed it might help me ‘to fulfill my fantasy of becoming the first Black, female Supreme Court justice to appear on a Broadway stage.'” She tells stories like these in her new memoir, "Lovely One."Justice Jackson joins host Kai Wright to discuss the bestselling book and more in a live conversation recorded at the U.S. National Archives in Washington D.C. They are accompanied by musical performances from the percussive and vocal group The Women of the Calabash.This episode was made in partnership with the March On Festival, telling stories that move, and AIDS Healthcare Foundation, through its We The People National Campaign, elevating the power of democracy for all Americans.Notes from America is a 2024 Signal Awards finalist! Community voting is now open for the show to earn a Listener's Choice honor for Best Live Podcast Recording, and we would be honored for you to take a minute to cast a vote our way. Click here to vote through October 17, and thank you for listening and supporting Notes from America! Tell us what you think. We're @noteswithkai on Instagram and X (Twitter). Email us at notes@wnyc.org. Send us a voice message by recording yourself on your phone and emailing us, or record one here.Notes from America airs live on Sundays at 6 p.m. ET. The podcast episodes are lightly edited from our live broadcasts.

October 9th, 1944. In California, 50 U.S. sailors are on trial for the Navy's most serious crime, mutiny. It's a rarely used charge, yet these 50 sailors—all of whom are Black—face the death penalty if convicted. But today, their chances of a fair trial get a little better.  Thurgood Marshall enters the courtroom. He is the lead attorney for the NAACP, and believes that this trial is a direct result of ongoing segregation and racism in the U.S. military. Knowing the odds are against him, Marshall will do everything he can to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Today, the Port Chicago Mutiny. Why did 50 Black sailors working on the homefront get charged with a capital crime? And with Thurgood Marshall on their side, will justice prevail in the courtroom? Special thanks to Matthew Delmont, professor of history at Dartmouth College and author of Half American: The Epic Story of African Americans Fighting World War II at Home and Abroad; and Steve Sheinkin, author of The Port Chicago 50: Disaster, Mutiny, and the Fight for Civil Rights. To stay updated: historythisweekpodcast.com To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Send us a textIn July of 1991, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall announced his retirement as a Supreme Court Justice. That would set off the second ugliest fight to date to fill a Supreme Court seat. Only the fight over the nomination of Robert Bork was tougher and Bork lost. Clarence Thomas was a conservative justice, he was young at age 43, and had had a distinguished career as the head of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and he served on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, He was a Yale Graduate and he had an undergraduate Degree from Holy Cross. He would also be the second African American to sit on the Supreme Court but he was not a liberal nor a Democrat. That guaranteed him a fight on issues concerning Civil Rights, Affirmative Action, and Abortion rights. Those fights turned out to be only the first round of the Hearings to confirm him. An accusation had been made in some of the FBI reports that had been checking his background and in typical Washington style, it got leaked. That led to round 2 and a long debate about the sordid tale of sexual harassment between the Conferee and a former employee he had at the EEOC, Dr. Anita Hill. This is the story of some of the most heated hearings ever held on Capitol Hill.  Questions or comments at , Randalrgw1@aol.com , https://twitter.com/randal_wallace , and http://www.randalwallace.com/Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcastsThanks for listening!!

From Amy: Terry Newby and I met in the spring of 2023 and found resonance between our writing that led us to trade books. We wanted to explore what it was to write about real people related to us, Terry in historical fiction and plays, me in creative nonfiction, specifically memoir. This is the third and final episode that resulted from that conversation. While Terry and I write different genres, the fact remains that we're writing around similar troublesome themes in American history, a history that is very much still playing out in modern-day patterns. We simply come to our understandings from different vantage points. Mine came through a longtime study of German literature as a lens on challenges closer to home, and I talk about that narrative path. But it wasn't until I read Isabel Wilkerson's Caste that I finally had a name for what I've seen all along in my homeland. Terrance C. Newby is an attorney, novelist, and playwright based in St. Paul, Minnesota. His plays The Cage, The Body Politic, Reunion Forever, and The Piano Teacher have been professionally staged in Twin Cities theaters.Terry's novel, Dangerfield's Promise, was published in April 2022, and has received five-star reviews from the Seattle Book Review, Manhattan Book Review, Chicago Book Review, and the Midwest Book Review, among others. Terry is currently working on a sequel to Dangerfield's Promise.Terry's LinkedInTerry has two upcoming plays being staged. See you there?Little Rock 1942: The true story of a civil rights lawsuit that brought Thurgood Marshall to St. Paul, and led to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decisionOctober 3 & 4, 7 pm | October 5, 2 pm, 2024.  Landmark Center, St. Paul, MN.https://www.landmarkcenter.org/history-play/Our Dearest Friends (the second play of the night)Thu, Nov 21, 2024 7:00 PM  Sun, Nov 24, 2024 2:00 PM.  The Hive Collaborative, St. Paul, MN.https://www.thehivecollaborativemn.com/events/a-woman-over-forty Amy Hallberg is the author of Tiny Altars: A Midlife Revival and German Awakening: Tales from an American Life. She is the host of Courageous Wordsmith Podcast and founder of Courageous Wordsmith Circle for Real-Life Writers. As a story coach and book writing mentor, she guides writers through their narrative journeys, from inklings to beautiful works. A lifelong Minnesotan and mother of grown twins, Amy lives in the Twin Cities with her husband and two cats. Learn about Courageous Wordsmith Circle for Real-Life WritersWork with Amy 1:1

In this podcast episode, I talk about the mentor of Thurgood Marshall, a man who was a veteran, a patriot, and a lawyer who literally changed the world.https://youtu.be/GwscFd2aUO4?s...

From Amy: Terry Newby and I met in the spring of 2023 and found resonance between our writing that led us to trade books. We wanted to explore what it was to write about real people related to us, Terry in historical fiction and plays, me in creative nonfiction, specifically memoir. This is the second of three episodes that resulted from that conversation. While Terry writes about real people using fiction to convey larger truths, he wondered what it's like when the people I write about are real people, and my contract with a reader of creative nonfiction says that anything I write about has to have happened. The very fact that I'm writing about any events or relationship already tells you that everything wasn't simply perfect. (Because... boring.) How we treat real people in writing is a question I regularly navigate with writers. Terry and I talk about how I navigate that in my work.Terrance C. Newby is an attorney, novelist, and playwright based in St. Paul, Minnesota. His plays The Cage, The Body Politic, Reunion Forever, and The Piano Teacher have been professionally staged in Twin Cities theaters.Terry's novel, Dangerfield's Promise, was published in April 2022, and has received five-star reviews from the Seattle Book Review, Manhattan Book Review, Chicago Book Review, and the Midwest Book Review, among others. Terry is currently working on a sequel to Dangerfield's Promise.Terry's LinkedInTerry has two upcoming plays being staged. See you there?Little Rock 1942: The true story of a civil rights lawsuit that brought Thurgood Marshall to St. Paul, and led to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decisionOctober 3 & 4, 7 pm | October 5, 2 pm, 2024.  Landmark Center, St. Paul, MN.https://www.landmarkcenter.org/history-play/Our Dearest Friends (the second play of the night)Thu, Nov 21, 2024 7:00 PM  Sun, Nov 24, 2024 2:00 PM.  The Hive Collaborative, St. Paul, MN.https://www.thehivecollaborativemn.com/events/a-woman-over-forty  Amy Hallberg is the author of Tiny Altars: A Midlife Revival and German Awakening: Tales from an American Life. She is the host of Courageous Wordsmith Podcast and founder of Courageous Wordsmith Circle for Real-Life Writers. As a story coach and book writing mentor, she guides writers through their narrative journeys, from inklings to beautiful works. A lifelong Minnesotan and mother of grown twins, Amy lives in the Twin Cities with her husband and two cats. Learn about Courageous Wordsmith Circle for Real-Life WritersWork with Amy 1:1

Episode Notes Another classic father - son scene: a blind boy reading (in a VERY preachy way, watch yourself, Matty) quotes by Thurgood Marshall. You know him. Today's scene can be found at: Daredevil 1.02 [31:59 - 33:34]. You can find us on Twitter @timelinescav! And individually you can find your hosts at @unabashedJames and @ColinMParker. BIG thank you for the intro and outro music from @NBramald! Check out his website at https://www.nickbramaldcomposer.co.uk. If you need music for any occasion, he's your man.Read transcript

From Amy: Terry Newby and I met in the spring of 2023 and found resonance between our writing that led us to trade books. We wanted to explore what it was to write about real people related to us, Terry in historical fiction and plays, me in creative nonfiction, specifically memoir. This is the first of three episodes that resulted from that conversation. In Terry's case, the relative was Dangerfield Newby, a newly-emancipated black Virginian determined to buy his wife and children out of slavery, and the first of John Brown's men to be killed in the ill-fated raid on Harper's Ferry. Dangerfield's modern counterpoint is fictitious surgeon Michael Turner, who becomes a surrogate for Terry in tracking his ancestor Dangerfield's path. Through this novel, Terry brought historical circumstances to life for me on many levels, and I'm excited to share our discussion.Terrance C. Newby is an attorney, novelist, and playwright based in St. Paul, Minnesota. His plays The Cage, The Body Politic, Reunion Forever, and The Piano Teacher have been professionally staged in Twin Cities theaters.Terry's novel, Dangerfield's Promise, was published in April 2022, and has received five-star reviews from the Seattle Book Review, Manhattan Book Review, Chicago Book Review, and the Midwest Book Review, among others. Terry is currently working on a sequel to Dangerfield's Promise.Terry's LinkedInTerry has two upcoming plays being staged. See you there?Little Rock 1942: The true story of a civil rights lawsuit that brought Thurgood Marshall to St. Paul, and led to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decisionOctober 3 & 4, 7 pm | October 5, 2 pm, 2024.  Landmark Center, St. Paul, MN.https://www.landmarkcenter.org/history-play/Our Dearest Friends (the second play of the night)Thu, Nov 21, 2024 7:00 PM  Sun, Nov 24, 2024 2:00 PM.  The Hive Collaborative, St. Paul, MN.https://www.thehivecollaborativemn.com/events/a-woman-over-forty  Amy Hallberg is the author of Tiny Altars: A Midlife Revival and German Awakening: Tales from an American Life. She is the host of Courageous Wordsmith Podcast and founder of Courageous Wordsmith Circle for Real-Life Writers. As a story coach and book writing mentor, she guides writers through their narrative journeys, from inklings to beautiful works. A lifelong Minnesotan and mother of grown twins, Amy lives in the Twin Cities with her husband and two cats. Learn about Courageous Wordsmith Circle for Real-Life WritersWork with Amy 1:1

President Johnson nominated Marshall to the Supreme Court on June 13, 1967, and his nomination was confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 69 to 11 on August ...

Today's Sponsor: Hostage Tapehttp://thisistheconversationproject.com/hostagetape      Today's Rundown:K-pop star Taeil quits NCT boy band over sex crime accusationhttps://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/29/k-pop-star-taeil-quits-nct-boy-band-over-sex-crime-accusation-what-we-know  France hands Telegram CEO Pavel Durov preliminary charges over alleged criminal activity on the apphttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/telegram-ceo-pavel-durov-france-preliminary-charges-latest-news-russia-uae/  Kroger Executive Admits Company Gouged Prices Above Inflationhttps://www.newsweek.com/kroger-executive-admits-company-gouged-prices-above-inflation-1945742  Bugs, mold and mildew found in Boar's Head plant linked to deadly listeria outbreakhttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/bugs-mold-mildew-inspection-boars-head-plant-listeria/  Wells Fargo employee found dead at office desk four days after clocking inhttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/08/29/wells-fargo-worker-dead/74995789007/?tbref=hp     Pat McAfee slams sports media over ‘misrepresentations' and ‘calculated attack' on his showhttps://amp.awfulannouncing.com/espn/pat-mcafee-show-sports-media-journalistic-standards-media-day.html    Parental stress is an urgent public health issue, U.S. surgeon general says in new advisoryhttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/parental-stress-public-health-issue-surgeon-general-advisory/     Civil rights lawyer Ben Crump advertises his firm on patches worn by US Open tennis playershttps://apnews.com/article/us-open-ben-crump-tomas-machac-patch-d7fe2461cd179e6f092282dc96a28542    Website: http://thisistheconversationproject.com  Facebook: http://facebook.com/thisistheconversationproject  Twitter: http://twitter.com/th_conversation  TikTok: http://tiktok.com/@theconversationproject  YouTube: http://thisistheconversationproject.com/youtube  Podcast: http://thisistheconversationproject.com/podcasts   ONE DAY OLDER ON AUGUST 30:Cameron Diaz (52)Lisa Ling (51)Bebe Rexha (35) WHAT HAPPENED TODAY:1963: A hotline between U.S. and Soviet leaders went into operation.1967: Thurgood Marshall was confirmed as the first African American Justice of the United States Supreme Court.2021: China restricted online gaming for under 18s to one hour on Fridays, weekends and holidays.  WORD OF THE DAY: satire [ sat-ahyuhr ]https://www.dictionary.com/browse/satirethe use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, to expose, denounce, or deride the folly or corruption of institutions, people, or social structuresThe comedian's performance was a brilliant satire on the state of modern politics, drawing laughter and applause from the audience.  DAILY AFFIRMATION: Miracles Happen In My Life Every Day.Promotes a Positive Mindset: By expecting miracles, individuals are more likely to adopt a positive outlook on life, which can influence their overall happiness and well-being.https://www.amazon.com/100-Daily-Affirmations-Positivity-Confidence/dp/B0D2D6SS2D?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER  PLUS, TODAY WE CELEBRATE: Slinky Dayhttps://www.checkiday.com/d98271fc38b41b4f9090731c8a271be5/slinky-dayOne of the most recognizable toys for decades, the Slinky, walks its way down stairs with a little extra swagger today, because it's Slinky Day! In 1943, Richard James, a naval engineer, was in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard working on a project that used springs to hold items up on moving ships, when he accidentally knocked down a spring and watched it "walk" and then coil itself up neatly on the floor. It was an idea-inspiring moment, and along with his wife, Betty, a plan was hatched to create a new toy. Betty combed through a dictionary and came up with the name "Slinky," and in 1945, with a 500 dollar loan, the couple created James Industries. At first, the Slinkys weren't selling, but when a demonstration table was set up in Philadelphia's Gimbels Department Store during the 1945 holiday shopping season, the James's sold 400 of them for a dollar each in 90 minutes—and people wanted more.  

Diane Warren earned Oscar nomination number nine for her song "Stand Up for Something," a song that highlights the motto of future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and the subject of the 2017 film Marshall. On this episode of The Best Song Podcast, you'll hear her nominated song that she co-wrote with Oscar winner Common, and the four songs competing for the big prize. That includes a song of empowerment written by the reigning Oscar champs and a multi-use by the husband-and-wife team that brought us "Let It Go."

In a recent address at a Black journalist convention, Donald Trump launched a controversial attack on Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris by questioning her mixed-race heritage. He claimed ignorance about whether Harris, who has an Indian mother and a Black father, identifies as Black or Indian. This attack echoes his previous racial jabs, notably when he dubbed Senator Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas," mocking her self-proclaimed Native American ancestry during the 2020 race. While Warren's response to Trump's provocation resulted in an embarrassing revelation of minimal Native ancestry, Harris's situation is distinct. Her heritage is well-documented; she has proudly embraced both aspects of her identity, from her involvement in one of the oldest Black sororities to her education at the historically Black Howard University.   Many within the GOP express unease with Trump's race-based attacks, fearing electoral repercussions not just in the presidential race but also in down-ballot contests. However, it is worth noting that Trump's racially charged tactics have proven effective in the past. Yet, attacking Harris as a "racial imposter" is unlikely to yield the same results as with Warren.   Trump's rhetoric on Harris resonates with certain factions, such as the ADOS (American Descendants of Slavery) movement, and even touches upon themes from Afro-pessimism. This academic perspective posits that the world's cultures are fundamentally anti-Black and that the prejudice one experiences correlates with one's skin tone. Under this framework, lighter-skinned, mixed-race individuals like Harris purportedly face fewer challenges than their darker-skinned counterparts, such as Congresswoman Cori Bush. But is this view valid? Historical figures like Thurgood Marshall, a light-skinned man who was the first Black Supreme Court Justice, undoubtedly faced immense challenges, arguably more so than Clarence Thomas, who is darker-skinned.   Afro-pessimism, with its focus on race as an ontological condition, often obscures the crucial role of class. The notion that light-skinned Black people enjoy privileges akin to those of white people due to their proximity to "whiteness" simplifies a complex reality. My good friend Bert Cooper, himself of mixed race and lighter skin, would likely contend that this narrow understanding of race, devoid of class analysis, fails to capture the nuanced "Black experience."   This discourse invites us to delve into the intersections of race, identity, and class, urging us to examine how these dynamics play out in the political arena and broader societal contexts.   Thank you guys again for taking the time to check this out. We appreciate each and everyone of you. If you have the means, and you feel so inclined, BECOME A PATRON! We're creating patron only programing, you'll get bonus content from many of the episodes, and you get MERCH!   Become a patron now https://www.patreon.com/join/BitterLakePresents?   Please also like, subscribe, and follow us on these platforms as well, (specially YouTube!)   THANKS Y'ALL   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG9WtLyoP9QU8sxuIfxk3eg Twitch: www.twitch.tv/thisisrevolutionpodcast www.twitch.tv/leftflankvets​ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Thisisrevolutionpodcast/ Twitter: @TIRShowOakland Instagram: @thisisrevolutionoakland   Read Jason Myles in Sublation Magazine https://www.sublationmag.com/writers/jason-myles   Read Jason Myles in Damage Magazine https://damagemag.com/2023/11/07/the-man-who-sold-the-world/   Pascal Robert's Black Agenda Report: https://www.blackagendareport.com/author/Pascal%20Robert

Originally built in 1877 as a segregated school for African American children, P.S. 103 will soon host a new headquarters for Baltimore's public health efforts, a museum space for the life of Thurgood Marshall and the city's field office of the Maryland Legislative Office of the Black Caucus. A 2016 fire ravaged the building, but a multi-millionaire dollar partnership with Community Services Corporation is helping to restore the historic Baltimore building. Rev. Dr. Alvin C. Hathaway Sr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Beloved Community Services Corp, joins Midday to discuss the project. (Photo courtesy Baltimore City Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation)Email us at midday@wypr.org, tweet us: @MiddayWYPR, or call us at 410-662-8780.

Send us a Text Message.Our Way Black History Fact highlights a Supreme Court justice we can all be proud of…Thurgood Marshall.Support the Show.www.civiccipher.comFollow us: @CivicCipher @iamqward @ramsesjaConsideration for today's show was provided by: Major Threads menswear www.MajorThreads.com Hip Hop Weekly Magazine www.hiphopweekly.com The Black Information Network Daily Podcast www.binnews.com

Today is July Fourth, Independence Day, coming at a time when many feel like democracy has been upended. This Fourth of July also comes just two days after the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act being passed and the observance of the 119th birthday of the first Black Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall. AURN's Ebony McMorris spoke with Rev. Al Sharpton about how for Black America, this day is a little different. "The country was not only settled with but embraced slavery before they even embraced the Bill of Rights or Constitution. And so we need to understand that is that July Fourth was never our holiday because we were enslaved in servitude when they met in Philadelphia. Our days came later, and we're yet to be where we ought to be," said Sharpton. He went on to talk about the great strides Americans have made but insisted that we must keep pushing for democracy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Send us a Text Message.BHMD Podcast presented by #NeemaBarnette is back with Season 4 episode 2 and our special July Preview.  It's shaping up to be an exciting month featuring mini docs of Thurgood Marshall, Mary McLeod Bethune, Ida B. Wells, Nelson Mandela, Della Reese and more.  Join host #ReedRMcCants as we explores the exciting programs BHMD has in store for the month of July. Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/laaFC8jcgcoWatch more videos at: blackhistoryminidocs.com#ThurgoodMarshall, #MaryMcLeodBethune #IdaBWells, #NelsonMandela #Della Reese #BlackHistory #blackexcellence #minidocs #NeemaBarnette #ReedRMcCants #blackhistoryminidocs

In this episode, Jayson sits down with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and historian Gilbert King. Gilbert shares his journey of uncovering dark and traumatic areas of American history, focusing on civil rights and wrongful convictions. They delve into his award-winning books, "Devil in the Grove" and "The Execution of Willie Francis," and discuss his podcast "Bone Valley," which raises questions about the justice system. Gilbert also reflects on the importance of self-care and the honor of telling forgotten stories.Check out Gilbert's podcast, Bone Valley, here.Visit our website and follow along with us on Instagram, join our Silver Linings Fireside Chat Facebook group and join us on Patreon.

Welcome to the Season four kick-off! Today, we have our first interview with one of the authors from our anthology on Christianity and American politics, the incredible Dr. Randy Woodley. The episode includes:-        How dualism defines White worldviews, and how it negatively affects White Christians-        How love and vulnerability are central to a life with Jesus-        Why our voting decisions matter to marginalized people-        And after the interview in our new segment, hear Jonathan and Sy talk about the attack on teaching Black history in schools, and the greater responsibility White people need to take for their feelings about historical factsResources Mentioned in the Episode-            Dr. Woodley's essay in our anthology: “The Fullness Thereof.”-            Dr. Woodley's book he wrote with his wife, now available for pre-order: Journey to Eloheh: How Indigenous Values Led Us to Harmony and Well-Being-            Dr. Woodley's recent children's books, the Harmony Tree Trilogy-            Our highlight from Which Tab Is Still Open?: The podcast conversation with Nikole Hannah-Jones and Jelani Cobb-            The book A Race Is a Nice Thing to Have: A Guide to Being a White Person or Understanding the White Persons in Your LifeCredits-        Follow KTF Press on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Subscribe to get our newsletter and bonus episodes at KTFPress.com.-        Follow host Jonathan Walton on Facebook Instagram, and Threads.-        Follow host Sy Hoekstra on Mastodon.-        Our theme song is “Citizens” by Jon Guerra – listen to the whole song on Spotify.-        Our podcast art is by Robyn Burgess – follow her and see her other work on Instagram.-        Production by Sy Hoekstra.-        Transcript by Joyce Ambale and Sy HoekstraTranscript[An acoustic guitar softly plays six notes, the first three ascending and the last three descending – F#, B#, E, D#, B – with a keyboard pad playing the note B in the background. Both fade out as Jonathan Walton says “This is a KTF Press podcast.”]Randy Woodley: So the Europeans were so set in this dualistic mindset that they began to kill each other over what they consider to be correct doctrine. So we had the religious wars all throughout Europe, and then they brought them to the United States. And here we fought by denomination, so we're just like, “Well I'm going to start another denomination. And I'm going to start another one from that, because I disagree with you about who gets baptized in what ways and at what time,” and all of those kinds of things. So doctrine then, what we think about, and theology, becomes completely disembodied to the point now where the church is just looked at mostly with disdain.[The song “Citizens” by Jon Guerra fades in. Lyrics: “I need to know there is justice/ That it will roll in abundance/ And that you're building a city/ Where we arrive as immigrants/ And you call us citizens/ And you welcome us as children home.” The song fades out.]Jonathan Walton: Welcome to Shake the Dust, seeking Jesus, confronting injustice. My name is Jonathan Walton.Sy Hoekstra: And I am Sy Hoekstra, we are so excited to be starting our interviews with our writers from our Anthology in 2020 that we published when we [resigned voice] had the same election that we're having this year [Jonathan laughs]. So it's still relevant at least, and we're really excited to bring you Dr. Randy Woodley today. Jonathan, why don't you tell everyone a bit about Dr. Woodley?Jonathan Walton: Yeah. So Dr. Woodley is a distinguished professor emeritus of faith and culture at George Fox Seminary in Portland, Oregon. His PhD is in intercultural studies. He's an activist, a farmer, a scholar, and active in ongoing conversations and concerns about racism, diversity, eco-justice, reconciliation ecumen… that's a good word.Sy Hoekstra: Ecumenism [laughter].Jonathan Walton: Ecumenism, interfaith dialogue, mission, social justice and indigenous peoples. He's a Cherokee Indian descendant recognized by the Keetoowah Band. He is also a former pastor and a founding board member of the North American Institute for Indigenous Theological Studies, or NAIITS, as we call it. Dr. Woodley and his wife Edith are co-founders and co-sustainers of Eloheh Indigenous Center for Earth Justice situated on farmland in Oregon. Their Center focuses on developing, implementing and teaching sustainable and regenerative earth practices. Together, they have written a book called Journey to Eloheh: How Indigenous Values Led Us to Harmony and Well-Being, which will come out in October. It's available for preorder now, you should definitely check it out. Dr. Woodley also released children's books called Harmony Tree.In our conversation, we talk about what he thinks is the key reason Western Christians have such a hard time following Jesus well, the centrality of love in everything we do as followers of Jesus, the importance of this year's elections to marginalize people, and Dr. Woodley's new books, and just a lot more.Sy Hoekstra: His essay in our book was originally published in Sojourners. It was one of the very few not original essays we had in the book, but it's called “The Fullness Thereof,” and that will be available in the show notes. I'll link to that along with a link to all the books that Jonathan just said and everything else. We're also going to be doing a new segment that we introduced in our bonus episodes, if you were listening to those, called Which Tab Is Still Open?, where we do a little bit of a deeper dive into one of the recommendations from our newsletter. So this week, it will be on The Attack on Black History in schools, a conversation with Jelani Cobb and Nikole Hannah-Jones. It was a really great thing to listen to. That'll be in the show notes to hear our thoughts on it after the interview.Jonathan Walton: Absolutely. And friends, we need your help. We're going into a new phase of KTF, and as you know, this is a listener supported show. So everything we do at KTF to help people leave the idols of America and seek Jesus and confront injustice is only possible because you are supporting us. And in this next phase, we need a lot more supporters. So we've been doing this show, and all of our work in KTF as kind of a side project for a few years, but we want to make it more sustainable. So if you've ever thought about subscribing and you can afford it, please go to and sign up now. And if you can't afford it, all you got to do is email us and we'll give you a free discounted subscription. No questions asked, because we want everyone to have access to our content, bonus episode, and the subscriber community features.So if you can afford it, please do go to www.ktfpress.com, subscribe and make sure these conversations can continue, and more conversations like it can be multiplied. Thanks in advance. Oh, also, because of your support, our newsletter is free right now. So if you can't be a paid subscriber, go and sign up for the free mailing list at www.ktfpress.com and get our media recommendations every week in your inbox, along with things that are helping us stay grounded and hopeful as we engage with such difficult topics at the intersection of church and politics, plus all the news and everything going on with us at KTF. So, thank you so, so much for the subscribers we already have. Thanks in advance for those five-star reviews, they really do help us out, and we hope to see you on www.ktfpress.com as subscribers. Thanks.Sy Hoekstra: Let's get into the interview, I have to issue an apology. I made a rookie podcasting mistake and my audio sucks. Fortunately, I'm not talking that much in this interview [laughter]. Randy Woodley is talking most of the time, and his recording comes to you from his home recording studio. So that's nice. I'll sound bad, but most of the time he's talking and he sounds great [Jonathan laughs]. So let's get right into it. Here's the interview.[the intro piano music from “Citizens” by Jon Guerra plays briefly and then fades out.]What Dualism Is, and How It's Infected the White ChurchJonathan Walton: So, Dr. Woodley, welcome to Shake The Dust. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you so much for contributing to our Anthology in the way that you contributed [laughs].Randy Woodley: I'm glad to be here. Thank you.Jonathan Walton: Yeah. Your essay, I mean, was really, really great. We're going to dive deep into it. But you wrote in the essay, the primary difference in the lens through which Western and indigenous Christians see the world is dualism. And so if you were able to just define what is dualism, and why is it a crucial thing for Western Christians to understand about our faith, that'd be great to kick us off.Randy Woodley: Yeah, except for I think I want to draw the line differently than the question you just asked.Jonathan Walton: Okay.Randy Woodley: When we say indigenous Christians, by and large, Christians who are Native Americans have been assimilated into a Western worldview. It's a battle, and there's lots of gradient, there's a gradient scale, so there's lots of degrees of that. But by and large, because of the assimilation efforts of missionaries and churches and Christianity in general, our Native American Christians would probably veer more towards a Western worldview. But so I want to draw that line at traditional indigenous understandings as opposed to indigenous Christian understandings. Okay. So, yeah, Platonic Dualism is just a sort of… I guess to make it more personal, I started asking the question a long time ago, like what's wrong with White people [Sy laughs]? So that's a really valid question, a lot of people ask it, right? But then I kind of got a little more sophisticated, and I started saying, well, then what is whiteness? What does that mean? And then tracing down whiteness, and a number of deep studies and research, and trying to understand where does whiteness really come from, I really ended up about 3000 years ago with the Platonic Dualism, and Western civilization and the Western worldview. And so Plato of course was the great dualist, and he privileged the ethereal over the material world, and then he taught his student, Aristotle. So just to be clear for anybody who, I don't want to throw people off with language. So the thing itself is not the thing, is what Plato said, it's the idea of what the thing is. And so what he's doing is splitting reality. So we've got a holistic reality of everything physical, everything ethereal, et cetera. So Plato basically split that and said, we privilege and we are mostly about what we think about things, not what actually exists an our physical eyes see, or any senses understand. So that split reality… and then he taught Aristotle, and I'm going to make this the five-minute crash course, or two minutes maybe would be better for this [laughs]. Aristotle actually, once you create hierarchies in reality, then everything becomes hierarchical. So men become over women, White people become over Black people. Humans become over the rest of creation. So now we live in this hierarchical world that continues to be added to by these philosophers.Aristotle is the instructor, the tutor to a young man named Alexander, whose last name was The Great. And Alexander basically spreads this Platonic Dualism, this Greek thinking around the whole world, at that time that he could figure out was the world. It goes as far as North Africa and just all over the known world at that time. Eventually, Rome becomes the inheritor of this, and then we get the Greco-Roman worldview. The Romans try to improve upon it, but basically, they continue to be dualist. It gets passed on, the next great kingdom is Britain, Great Britain. And then of course America is the inheritor of that. So Great Britain produces these movements.In fact, between the 14th and 17th century, they have the Renaissance, which is a revival of all this Greek thinking, Roman, Greco-Roman worldview, architecture, art, poetry, et cetera. And so these become what we call now the classics, classic civilization. When we look at what's the highest form of civilization, we look back to, the Western worldview looks back to Greek and Greece and Rome and all of these, and still that's what's taught today to all the scholars. So, during this 14th to 17th century, there's a couple pretty big movements that happen in terms of the West. One, you have the enlightenment. The enlightenment doubles down on this dualism. You get people like René Descartes, who says, “I am a mind, but I just have a body.” You get Francis Bacon, who basically put human beings over nature. You get all of this sort of doubling down, and then you also have the birth of another, what I would call the second of the evil twins, and that is the Reformation. [exaggerated sarcastic gasp] I'll give the audience time to respond [laughter]. The Reformation also doubles down on this dualism, and it becomes a thing of what we think about theology, instead of what we do about theology. So I think I've said before, Jesus didn't give a damn about doctrine. So it became not what we actually do, but what we think. And so the Europeans were so set in this dualistic mindset that they began to kill each other over what they consider to be correct doctrine. So we had the religious wars all throughout Europe, and then they brought them to the United States. And here we fought by denomination, so just like, “Well, I'm going to start another denomination. And I'm going to start another one from that, because I disagree with you about who gets baptized in what ways, and at what time,” and all of those kinds of things.So doctrine then, what we think about, and theology becomes what we're thinking about. And it becomes completely disembodied, to the point now where the church is just looked at mostly with disdain, because it doesn't backup the premises that it projects. So it talks about Jesus and love and all of these things. And yet it's not a reflection of that, it's all about having the correct beliefs, and we think that's what following Jesus is. So when I'm talking about Platonic Dualism, I'm talking about something deeply embedded in our worldview. Not just a thought, not just a philosophy, but a whole worldview. It's what we see as reality. And so my goal is to convert everyone from a Western worldview, which is not sustainable, and it will not project us into the future in a good way, to a more indigenous worldview.Dr. Woodley's Influences, and How He's Influenced OthersSy Hoekstra: So let's talk about that effort then, because you have spent effectively decades trying to do just that.Randy Woodley: Exactly.Sy Hoekstra: Working with both indigenous and non-indigenous people. So tell us what some of the good fruit that you see as you disciple people out of this dualistic thinking?Randy Woodley: I feel like that question is supposed to be answered by the people I effected at my memorial service, but…Sy Hoekstra: [laughter] Well, you can answer for yourself.Jonathan Walton: Yeah, I mean…Randy Woodley: Yeah, I mean, it's a bit braggadocious if I start naming names and all those kinds of things [Sy laughs]. I would just say that I've had influence in people's lives along with other influences. And now, I mean, first of all when I look back, I look and the most important thing to me is my children know I love them with all my heart and I did the best I could with them. And then secondly, the people who I taught became my friends. And the people I've mentored became my friends and I'm still in relationship with so many of them. That's extremely important to me. That's as important as anything else. And then now I look and I see there's people and they've got podcasts and they've got organizations and they've got denominations and they're... I guess overall, the best thing that I have done to help other people over the years is to help them to ask good questions in this decolonization effort and this indigenous effort. So yeah, I've done a little bit over the years.Sy Hoekstra: [laughs] How about for yourself? Because I don't think, I think one of the reasons you started asking these questions was to figure things out for yourself. What fruit have you seen in your own “walk,” as evangelicals might put it?Randy Woodley: Well, I think as you get older, you get clarity. And you also realize that people who have influenced you, and I think about a lot of people in my life. Some I've met, some I've never met. Some you've probably never heard of. People like Winkie Pratney, and John Mohawk and John Trudell, and public intellectuals like that. And then there's the sort of my some of my professors that helped me along the way like Ron Sider and Tony Campolo, and Samuel Escobar and Manfred Brauch. And just a whole lot of people I can look back, Jean [inaudible], who took the time to build a relationship and helped me sort of even in my ignorance, get out of that. And I think one of the first times this happened was when I was doing my MDiv, and someone said to me, one of my professors said to me, “You need to see this through your indigenous eyes.” And I was challenged. It was like, “Oh! Well then, what eyes am I seeing this through?” And then I began to think about that. The thing about decolonizing, is that once you start pulling on that thread the whole thing comes unraveled. So yeah.Jonathan Walton: Yeah, I think like, just to speak a little bit to your impact, I think something you said to someone that was said to me, was like we're all indigenous to somewhere. And the importance of looking upstream to see how we're influenced to be able to walk into the identity that God has called us to. Including the people who led me to faith being like Ashley Byrd, Native Hawaiian, being able to call me out of a dualist way of thinking and into something more holistic, and now having multi-ethnic children myself being able to speak to them in an indigenous way that connects them to a land and a people has been really transformative for me.Randy Woodley: Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. See? Right there.Love and Vulnerability are Central to Christian LifeJonathan Walton: [laughs] Yeah. And with that, you make a point of saying that you're somebody who works hard to speak difficult truths in a way that is loving and acceptable to everybody. I would say that's like Jesus, right? To be able to speak hard truths and yet people are curious and want to know more even though they're challenged. And so why, I could guess, and I'm sure people would fill in the blanks. But like if you had to say why that's important to you, what would you say?Randy Woodley: Well, I mean, love's the bottom line of everything. If I'm not loving the people I'm with, then I'm a hypocrite. I'm not living up to what I'm speaking about. So the bottom line to all of this shalom, understanding dualism, changing worldviews, is love. And so love means relationship. It means being vulnerable. I always say God is the most vulnerable being who exists. And if I'm going to be the human that the creator made me to be, then I have to be vulnerable. I have to risk and I have to trust and I have to have courage and love, and part of that is building relationships with people. So I think, yeah, if… in the old days, we sort of had a group of Native guys that hung around together, me and Richard Twiss, Terry LeBlanc, Ray Aldred, Adrian Jacobs. We all sort of had a role. Like, we called Richard our talking head. So he was the best communicator and funniest and he was out there doing speaking for all of us. And my role that was put on me was the angry Indian. So I was the one out there shouting it down and speaking truth to power and all that. And over the years, I realized that that's okay. I still do that. And I don't know that I made a conscious decision or if I just got older, but then people start coming up to me and saying things like, “Oh, you say some really hard things, but you say it with love.” And I'm like, “Oh, okay. Well, I'll take that.” So I just became this guy probably because of age, I don't know [laughs] and experience and seeing that people are worth taking the extra time to try and communicate in a way that doesn't necessarily ostracize them and make them feel rejected.Jonathan Walton: Yeah, that definitely makes sense. I think there's all these iterations of the last 50 years of people trying to say, “Hey, love across difference. Hey, love across difference.” And there's these iterations that come up. So I hope a lot of people get older faster to be able, you know [laughter].Randy Woodley: I think we're all getting older faster in this world we're in right now.Jonathan Walton: It's true. Go ahead Sy.The Importance of Voters' Choices to marginalized PeopleSy Hoekstra: Yeah. So we had another interview that we did, kind of about Middle East politics, as we're thinking about the election coming up. And one of the points we hit on that we've talked about before on this show is that to a lot of people in the Middle East or North Africa, whoever gets elected in the US, it doesn't necessarily make the biggest difference in the world. There's going to be drones firing missiles, there's going to be governments being manipulated by the US. America is going to do what America is going to do in the Middle East regardless. And I assume to a certain degree, tell me if I'm wrong, that that might be how a lot of indigenous people think about America. America is going to do what America is going to do regardless of who's in power, broadly speaking at least. What do you think about when you look at the choices in front of us this November? How do you feel about it? Like what is your perspective when you're actually thinking about voting?Randy Woodley: Yeah, that's a really good question. And I understand I think, how people in other countries might feel, because Americans foreign policy is pretty well based on America first and American exceptionalism, and gaining and maintaining power in the world. And I think that makes little difference. But in domestic affairs, I think it makes a whole lot of difference. Native Americans, much like Black Americans are predominantly Democrats and there's a reason for that. And that is because we're much more likely to not have our funding to Indian Health Service cut off in other things that we need, housing grants and those kinds of things. And there's just such a difference right now, especially in the domestic politics. So I mean, the Republicans have basically decided to abandon all morals and follow a narcissistic, masochistic, womanizing… I mean, how many—criminal, et cetera, and they've lost their minds.And not that they have ever had the best interest of the people at the bottom of the social ladder in mind. Because I mean, it was back in the turnaround when things changed a long time ago that there was any way of comparing the two. But ever since Reagan, which I watched, big business wins. And so right now, we live in a corporatocracy. And yes, there are Democrats and the Republicans involved in that corporatocracy, but you will find many more Democrats on the national scale who are for the poor and the disenfranchised. And that's exactly what Shalom is about. It's this Shalom-Sabbath-Jubilee construct that I call, that creates the safety nets. How do you know how sick a society is? How poor its safety nets are. So the better the safety nets, the more Shalom-oriented, Sabbath-Jubilee construct what I call it, which is exactly what Jesus came to teach.And look up four, that's his mission. Luke chapter four. And so, when we think about people who want to call themselves Christians, and they aren't concerned about safety nets, they are not following the life and words of Jesus. So you just have to look and say, yes, they'll always, as long as there's a two-party system, it's going to be the lesser of two evils. That's one of the things that's killing us, of course lobbyists are killing us and everything else. But this two-party system is really killing us. And as long as we have that, we're always going to have to choose the lesser of two evils. It's a very cynical view, I think, for people inside the United States to say, well, there's no difference. In fact, it's a ridiculous view. Because all you have to look at is policy and what's actually happened to understand that there's a large difference, especially if you're poor.And it's also a very privileged position of whiteness, of power, of privilege to be able to say, “Oh, it doesn't matter who you vote for.” No, it matters to the most disenfranchised and the most marginalized people in our country. But I don't have a strong opinion about that. [laughter]Jonathan Walton: I think there's going to be a lot of conversation about that very point. And I'm prayerful, I'm hopeful, like we tried to do with our Anthology like other groups are trying to do, is to make that point and make it as hard as possible that when we vote it matters, particularly for the most disenfranchised people. And so thank you for naming the “survival vote,” as black women in this country call it.Dr. Woodley's new books, and Where to Find His Work OnlineJonathan Walton: And so all of that, like we know you're doing work, we know things are still happening, especially with Eloheh and things like that. But I was doing a little Googling and I saw like you have a new book coming out [laughs]. So I would love to hear about the journey that… Oh, am I saying that right, Eloheh?Randy Woodley: It's Eloheh [pronounced like “ay-luh-hay”], yeah.Jonathan Walton: Eloheh. So I would love to hear more about your new book journey to Eloheh, as well as where you want people to just keep up with your stuff, follow you, because I mean, yes, the people downstream of you are pretty amazing, but the spigot is still running [laughter]. So can you point us to where we can find your stuff, be able to hang out and learn? That would be a wonderful thing for me, and for others listening.Randy Woodley: Well, first of all, I have good news for the children. I have three children's books that just today I posted on my Facebook and Insta, that are first time available. So this is The Harmony Tree Trilogy. So in these books are about not only relationships between host people and settler peoples, but each one is about sort of different aspects of dealing with climate change, clear cutting, wildfires, animal preservation, are the three that I deal with in this trilogy. And then each one has other separate things. Like the second one is more about empowering women. The third one is about children who we would call, autistic is a word that's used. But in the native way we look at people who are different differently than the West does: as they're specially gifted. And this is about a young man who pre-contact and his struggle to find his place in native society. And so yeah, there's a lot to learn in these books. But yeah, so my wife and I…Sy Hoekstra: What's the target age range for these books?Randy Woodley: So that'd be five to 11.Jonathan Walton: Okay, I will buy them, thank you [laughter]Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Randy Woodley: But adults seem to really love them too. So I mean, people have used them in church and sermons and all kinds of things. Then the book that Edith and I wrote is called Journey to Eloheh, how indigenous values bring harmony and well-being. And it's basically our story. The first two chapters really deal, the first chapter deals more in depth of this dualism construct. And the second one really deals with my views on climate change, which are unlike anybody else's I know. And then we get into our stories, but I wanted to set a stage of why it's so important. And then Edith's story, and then my story and then our story together. And then how we have tried to teach these 10 values as we live in the world and teach and mentor and other things and raise our children.So, yeah, the journey to Eloheh, that's all people have to remember. It's going to be out in October, eighth I think.Jonathan Walton: Okay.Randy Woodley: And we're really excited about it. I think it's the best thing I've written up to this date. And I know it's the best thing my wife's written because this is her first book [laughter].Jonathan Walton: Awesome.Sy Hoekstra: That's great.Randy Woodley: Yeah, so we're proud of that. And then yeah, people can go to www.eloheh.org. That's E-L-O-H-E-H.org and sign up for our newsletter. You can follow me on Instagram, both @randywoodley7 and @eloheh/eagleswings. And the same with Facebook. We all have Facebook pages and those kinds of things. So yeah, and then Twitter. I guess I do something on Twitter every now and then [laughter]. And I have some other books, just so you know.Sy Hoekstra: Just a couple.Jonathan Walton: I mean a few. A few pretty great ones. [laughs] Well on behalf of me and Sy, and the folks that we influence. Like I've got students that I've pointed toward you over the years through the different programs that we run,Randy Woodley: Thank you.Jonathan Walton: and one of them is… two of them actually want to start farms and so you'll be hearing from them.Randy Woodley: Oh, wow. That's good.Jonathan Walton: And so I'm just…Randy Woodley: We need more small farms.Jonathan Walton: Yes. Yes, absolutely. Places where stewardship is happening and it is taught. And so, super, super grateful for you. And thanks again for being on Shake the Dust. We are deeply grateful.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Randy Woodley: Yeah, thank you guys. Nice to be with you.[the intro piano music from “Citizens” by Jon Guerra plays briefly and then fades out.]Sy's and Jonathan's Thoughts After the InterviewJonathan Walton: So, wow. That was amazing. Coming out of that time, I feel like I'm caring a lot. So Sy, why don't you go first [laughs], what's coming up for you?Sy Hoekstra: We sound a little starstruck when we were talking to him. It's kind of funny actually.Jonathan Walton: Absolutely.Sy Hoekstra: I don't know. Yeah, I don't know if people know, in our world, he's sort of a big deal [laughter]. And we have, neither of us have met him before so that was a lot of fun.Jonathan Walton: No, that's true.Sy Hoekstra: I think it was incredible how much like in the first five minutes, him summing up so much about Western theology and culture that I have taken like, I don't know, 15 years to learn [laughs]. And he just does it so casually and so naturally. There's just like a depth of wisdom and experience and thinking about this stuff there that I really, really appreciate. And it kind of reminded me of this thing that happened when Gabrielle and I were in law school. Gabrielle is my wife, you've heard her speak before if you listen to the show. She was going through law school, as she's talked about on the show from a Haitian-American, or Haitian-Canadian immigrant family, grew up relatively poor, undocumented.And just the reasons that she's gotten into the law are so different. And she comes from such a different background than anybody who's teaching her, or any of the judges whose cases she's reading. And she's finding people from her background just being like, “What are we doing here? Like how is this relevant to us, how does this make a difference?” And we went to this event one time that had Bryan Stevenson, the Capitol defense attorney who we've talked about before, civil rights attorney. And Sherrilyn Ifill, who at the time was the head of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund. And they were just, it was the complete opposite experience, like they were talking about all of her concerns. They were really like, I don't know, she was just resonating with everything that they were saying, and she came out of it, and she goes, “It's just so good to feel like we have leaders.” Like it's such a relief to feel like you actually have wiser people who have been doing this and thinking about this for a long time and actually have the same concerns that you do. And that is how I feel coming out of our conversation with Randy Woodley. Like in the church landscape that we face with all the crises and the scandals and the lack of faithfulness and the ridiculous politics and everything, it is just so good to sit down and talk to someone like him, where I feel like somebody went ahead of me. And he's talking about the people who went ahead of him, and it just it's relieving. It is relieving to feel like you're almost sort of part of a tradition [laughter], when you have been alienated from the tradition that you grew up in, which is not the same experience that you've had, but that's how I feel.Jonathan Walton: Yeah. I mean, I think for me, coming out of the interview, one of the things I realized is similar. I don't have very many conversations with people who are older than me, that are more knowledgeable than me, and have been doing this work longer than me all at the same time. I know people who are more knowledgeable, but they're not actively involved in the work. I know people that are actively involved in the work, but they've been in the silos for so long, they haven't stepped out of their box in ten years. But so to be at that intersection of somebody who is more knowledgeable about just the knowledge, like the historical aspects, theological aspect, and then that goes along with the practical applications, like how you do it in your life and in the lives of other people. He's like the spiritual grandfather to people that I follow.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Jonathan Walton: [laughter] So it's like, so I think you said it, like we were a little starstruck. I do think I was very conscious of being respectful, which I think is not new for me, but it is a space that I don't often inhabit. And I think that's something that has been frustrating for me, just honestly like the last few years, is that the pastoral aspect of the work that we do, is severely lacking.Sy Hoekstra: When you say the pastoral aspect of the work that we do, you mean like, in the kind of activist-y Christian space, there just aren't a ton of pastors [laughs]?Jonathan Walton: Yes. And, so for example, like I was in a cohort, and I was trying to be a participant. And so being a participant in the cohort, I expected a certain level of pastoring to happen for me. And that in hindsight was a disappointment. But I only realized that after sitting down with somebody like Randy, where it's like, I'm not translating anything. He knows all the words. He knows more words than me [Sy laughs]. I'm not contextualizing anything. So I think that was a reassuring conversation. I think I felt the same way similarly with Ron Sider, like when I met him. He's somebody who just knows, you know what and I mean? I feel that way talking with Lisa Sharon Harper. I feel that way talking with Brenda Salter McNeil. I feel that way talking with people who are just a little further down the road.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah. Lisa's not that much older than us [laughter].Jonathan Walton: Well, is she?Sy Hoekstra: You compared her to Ron Sider. I'm like, “That's a different age group, Jonathan” [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Well, I don't mean age. I do mean wisdom and experience.Sy Hoekstra: Right. Yeah, totally.Jonathan Walton: Yes, Ron Sider was very old [laughs]. And actually, Ron Sider is actually much older than Randy Woodley [laughs].Sy Hoekstra: That's also true. That's a good point.Jonathan Walton: Yeah, right. Ron Sider is, when the Anthology came out, he was legit 45 years older than us, I think.Sy Hoekstra: And he very kindly, endorsed, and then passed away not that long afterwards.Jonathan Walton: He did, he did.Sy Hoekstra: He was such an interesting giant in a lot of ways to people all over the political spectrum [laughs]…Jonathan Walton: Yes, right.Sy Hoekstra: …who just saw something really compelling in his work.Which Tab Is Still Open? Legislators Restricting Teaching about Race in SchoolsSy Hoekstra: So Jonathan, all right, from our recent newsletter recommendations. Here's the new segment, guys. Jonathan, which tab is still open?Jonathan Walton: Yes. So the tab that's still open is this article and podcast episode from The New Yorker, featuring a conversation with Columbia School of Journalism Dean, Jelani Cobb, and Nikole Hannah-Jones from Howard University and the 1619 project. They talked about the attack on Black history in schools. And so there's just two thoughts that I want to give. And one of them is that there are very few conversations where you can get a broad overview of what an organized, sustained resistance to accurate historical education looks like, and they do that. Like they go all the way back and they come all the way forward, and you're like “expletive, this is not okay.” [Sy laughs] Right? So, I really appreciated that. Like, yes, you could go and read Angela Crenshaw's like Opus work. Yes, you could go…Sy Hoekstra: You mean, Kimberlé Crenshaw [laughs]?Jonathan: Oh, I mixed, Angela Davis and Kimber… Well, if they were one person, that would be a powerful person [Sy laughs]. But I do mean Kimberlé Crenshaw, no offense to Angela Davis. I do mean Kimberlé Crenshaw. You could go get that book. You could go listen to Ta-Nehisi Coates testimony in front of Congress on reparations. Like these long things, but like this conversation pulls a lot of threads together in a really, really helpful, compelling way. And so that's one thing that stood out to me. The second thing is I think I have to acknowledge how fearful and how grateful it made me. I am afraid of what's going to happen in 20 years, when children do not know their history in these states. And I'm grateful that my daughter will know hers because she goes to my wife's school in New York.And so, I did not know that I would feel that sense of fear and anxiety around like, man, there's going to be generations of people. And this is how it continues. There's going to be another generation of people who are indoctrinated into the erasure of black people. And the erasure of native people in the erasure of just narratives that are contrary to race-based, class-based, gender-based environmental hierarchies. And that is something that I'm sad about. And with KTF and other things, just committed to making sure that doesn't happen as best as we possibly can, while also being exceptionally grateful that my children are not counted in that number of people that won't know. So I hold those two things together as I listened to just the wonderful wisdom and knowledge that they shared from. What about you Sy? What stood out for you?White People Should Take Responsibility for Their Feelings Instead of Banning Uncomfortable TruthsSy Hoekstra: Narrowly, I think one really interesting point that Jelani Cobb made was how some of these book bans and curriculum reshaping and everything that's happening are based on the opposite reasoning of the Supreme Court in Brown versus Board of Education [laughs]. So what he meant by that was, basically, we have to ban these books and we have to change this curriculum, because White kids are going to feel bad about being White kids. And what Brown versus Board of Education did was say we're going to end this idea of separate but equal in the segregated schools because there were they actually, Thurgood Marshall and the people who litigated the case brought in all this science or all the psychological research, about how Black children in segregated schools knew at a very young age that they were of lower status, and had already associated a bunch of negative ideas with the idea of blackness.And so this idea that there can be separate but equal doesn't hold any water, right? So he was just saying we're doing what he called the opposite, like the opposite of the thinking from Brown versus Board of Education at this point. But what I was thinking is like the odd similarity is that both these feelings of inferiority come from whiteness, it's just that like, one was imposed by the dominant group on to the minoritized group. Basically, one was imposed by White people on to Black people, and the other is White people kind of imposing something on themselves [laughs]. Like you are told that your country is good and great and the land of the free and the home of the brave. And so when you learn about history that might present a different narrative to you, then you become extremely uncomfortable.And you start to not just become extremely uncomfortable, but also feel bad about yourself as an individual. And White people, there are so many White people who believe that being told that the race to which you belong has done evil things, that means that you as an individual are a bad person, which is actually just a personal emotional reaction that not all white people are going to have. It's not like, it isn't a sure thing. And I know that because I'm a White person who does not have that reaction [laughter]. I know that with 100 percent certainty. So it's just interesting to me, because it really raised this point that Scott Hall talks about a lot. That people need to be responsible for our own feelings. We don't need to legislate a new reality of history for everybody else in order to keep ourselves comfortable.We need to say, “Why did I had that emotional reaction, and how can I reorient my sense of identity to being white?” And that is what I came out of this conversation with, is just White people need to take responsibility for our identity, our psychological identity with our own race. And it comes, it's sort of ironic, I think, that conservative people who do a lot of complaining about identity politics, or identitarianism, or whatever they call it, that's what's happening here. This is a complete inability to separate yourself psychologically from your White identity. That's what makes you feel so uncomfortable in these conversations. And so take responsibility for who you are White people [laughs].Just who you are as an individual, who you are as your feelings, take responsibility for yourself.There's a great book that my dad introduced me to a while back called A Race Is a Nice Thing to Have: A Guide to Being White or Understanding the White Persons in Your Life [laughter]. And it's written by this black, female psychologist named Janet Helms. It's H-E-L-M-S. But it's pronounced “Helmiss.” And she just has dedicated her career to understanding how White people shape their identities. And she has so, like such a wealth of knowledge about different stages of white identity formation, and has all these honestly kind of funny little quizzes in the book that she updates every few, there's like a bunch of editions of this book, that it's like asking you, “What do you think is best for America?” The campaign and ideas of this politician or this one or this one. And she asks you a bunch of questions and from there tells you where you are in your White identity formation [laughs].Jonathan Walton: Wow. That's amazing.Sy Hoekstra: It's really, “how would you feel if somebody said this about White people?” whatever. Tons of different questions, it's kind of like taking a personality test, but it's about you and your race [laughs]. That's just a resource that I would offer to people as a way to do what this conversation reminded me my people all very much need to do.Jonathan Walton: Amen.Sy Hoekstra: I just talked for a long time, Jonathan, we need to end. But do you have any thoughts [laughs]?Jonathan Walton: No. I was just going to say this podcast is a great 101 and a great 301.Sy Hoekstra: Yeah.Jonathan Walton: Like it spans the spectrum. So please do if you haven't, go listen to the podcast. Yeah, just check it out. It's very, very good.Outro and OuttakeSy Hoekstra: We will have that in the show notes along with all the other links of everything that we had today. Okay, that's our first full episode of season four. We're so glad that you could join us. This was a great one full of a lot of great stuff. Our theme song as always is “Citizens” by Jon Guerra. Our podcast art is by Robyn Burgess. The show is produced by all of you, our lovely subscribers, and our transcripts are by Joyce Ambale. Thank you all so much for listening, we will see you in two weeks with the great Brandi Miller.[The song “Citizens” by Jon Guerra fades in. Lyrics: “I need to know there is justice/ That it will roll in abundance/ And that you're building a city/ Where we arrive as immigrants/ and you call us citizens/ and you welcome us as children home.” The song fades out.]Randy Woodley: You know, I think I've said before Jesus didn't give a damn about doctrine. Excuse me. Jesus didn't give a darn about doctrine. I don't know if that'll go through or not.[laughter]. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ktfpress.com/subscribe

In this episode, Rich and Pam discuss the successes and failures of Brown v. Board of Education with their colleague, Rick Banks. Marking the 70th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, they look at its impact on Jim Crow segregation and the ongoing challenges in achieving educational equality in the U.S. Banks offers a critical analysis of the effectiveness of Brown in integrating American primary and secondary education and explores alternative approaches to further racial and socioeconomic integration in schools.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Ralph Richard Banks >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Lawyer online feature >>> Brown v. Board: Success or Failure?(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction and Significance of Brown vs. Board of EducationIntroduction to the podcast and the topic of Brown vs. Board of Education. Discussion on the transformative impact of Brown on American society and its less effective impact on primary and secondary education.(00:02:36) Chapter 2: Initial Impact and Challenges of BrownExploration of the immediate aftermath of the Brown decision, including the decade of minimal desegregation and the eventual legislative push in the 1960s. Mention of personal anecdotes highlighting the slow progress.(00:06:35) Chapter 3: Massive Resistance and Supreme Court's RoleDiscussion on the era of massive resistance to desegregation, the role of the Southern Manifesto, and the Supreme Court's strategic avoidance of direct intervention. Examination of the lingering effects of this period on the present educational landscape.(00:10:16) Chapter 4: Socioeconomic Disparities and School SegregationAnalysis of the ongoing economic inequality and its impact on school segregation. Comparison between Northern and Southern school desegregation efforts, with specific examples from Detroit and Charlotte.(00:14:45) Chapter 5: Legal and Structural Barriers to IntegrationExamination of legal decisions such as Milliken and San Antonio vs. Rodriguez that reinforced segregation and funding disparities. Discussion on the narrow scope of Brown and its consequences.(00:18:58) Chapter 6: Integration vs. Educational QualityDebate on the merits of integration versus focusing on educational quality through alternative methods such as charter schools and vouchers. Consideration of the mixed outcomes of these approaches.(00:22:19) Chapter 7: Parental Responsibility and Systemic SolutionsReflection on the burden placed on parents to seek better education through choice programs. Comparison to historical figures who fought for desegregation. Discussion on the need for systemic solutions rather than relying solely on choice.(00:25:02) Chapter 8: Future Directions and Pragmatic SolutionsCall for a mix of approaches to improve education, combining integration efforts with initiatives focused on educational quality. Emphasis on the importance of experimentation, evidence collection, and open-minded evaluation of educational policies.

In conversation with Wil Haygood Paul Hendrickson's books include Sons of Mississippi, winner of the National Book Critics Circle Award; Hemingway's Boat: Everything He Loved in Life, and Lost, 1934–1961, a National Book Critics Circle Award finalist; and The Living and the Dead: Robert McNamara and Five Lives of a Lost War, a National Book Award finalist. A creative writing teacher at the University of Pennsylvania for more than 25 years and a feature writer at The Washington Post for the two decades before that, he is the recipient of writing fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Lyndhurst Foundation, among other institutions. In Fighting the Night, Hendrickson tells the story of his father's World War II service as a nighttime fighter pilot and the sacrifices he, his family, and his generation made on behalf of their country. Pulitzer Prize-nominated journalist Wil Haygood has, over a storied 30-year career, worked at the Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and as a globetrotting investigative reporter. He is most famous for his 2008 Washington Post article, ''A Butler Well Served by This Election,'' about the White House steward who bore witness to some of 20th century America's most notable events and figures. He later expanded the article into a bestselling book that was adapted into the critically acclaimed film The Butler, starring Forest Whitaker. Haygood is also the author of Colorization: One Hundred Years of Black Films in a White World and popular biographies of Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Sugar Ray Robinson, Thurgood Marshall, and Sammy Davis, Jr.  Because you love Author Events, please make a donation to keep our podcasts free for everyone. THANK YOU! (recorded 5/16/2024)

Knuckleheads of God (Malachi) Today we wrap up the Hebrew Scriptures, talking (once again) about our failures and God's faithfulness. Questions for reflection: - Where have you encountered God this week? Readings for next week: Take a break and get ready for the New Testament this fall! Links mentioned in this episode: - Thurgood Marshall's church, St. Augustine Episcopal Church, Washington, D.C. (https://www.staugustinesdc.org/) - Dr. Tony's notes (https://www.stmartininthefields.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Intro-to-Exilic-and-Postexilic-Prophets.pdf) - The Bible Project overview of Malachi (https://bibleproject.com/guides/book-of-malachi/) - Check us out on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@biblelovepodcast) The show music is "Silver Lining" by Brent Wood, licensed under Soundstripe

Movie Recommendations: Selma (2014): David Oyelowo's portrayal of Martin Luther King during the historic voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. Boycott (2001): Featuring Jeffrey Wright as Martin Luther King Jr. and focusing on the Montgomery bus boycott. Harriet (2019): Cynthia Erivo's performance as Harriet Tubman and her work on the Underground Railroad. The Birth of a Nation (2016): Depicting the story of Nat Turner, a historical figure central to African American history. Ray (2004): Jamie Foxx's remarkable portrayal of the legendary musician Ray Charles. What's Love Got to Do with It (1993): Angela Bassett's iconic role as Tina Turner, offering insights into her tumultuous life. Hidden Figures (2016): Celebrating the contributions of female scientists and mathematicians working at NASA during the space race. Concussion (2015): Will Smith's role as Dr. Bennet Omalu, a pathologist who investigates head injuries among football players. The United States vs. Billie Holiday (2021): Andra Day's performance as Billie Holiday and her struggle against federal persecution. Lady Sings the Blues (1972): Diana Ross's portrayal of Billie Holiday, offering a perspective on the jazz legend's life. Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom (2013): Idris Elba's portrayal of Nelson Mandela's life and journey to becoming South Africa's first black president. Hotel Rwanda (2004): Don Cheadle's role in a powerful yet challenging film about the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Judas and the Black Messiah (2021): A portrayal of the Black Panther Party and the tragic story of Fred Hampton. Panther (1995): A star-studded retelling of the Black Panther movement directed by Mario Van Peebles. Marshall (2017): Chadwick Boseman's depiction of Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court justice. 42 (2013): Chadwick Boseman's portrayal of Jackie Robinson, breaking the color barrier in Major League Baseball. One Night in Miami (2020): A fictional but thought-provoking film depicting a meeting between Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Sam Cooke, and Jim Brown. Continuing the List: The host briefly mentions additional films that have had a powerful impact on him personally, including "Fruitvale Station," "Remember the Titans," "Glory," "Rosewood," "Cooley High," and others. Conclusion: Emphasizing that these films are worth watching at any time of the year, not just during Black History Month. Encouraging viewers to explore these movies to gain a deeper understanding of African American history and culture.

My next guest on Mea Culpa is Neal Kaytal. The former Obama administration Solicitor General of the United States and New York Times bestselling author, of “Impeach,” The Case Against Donald Trump. In addition, Neal runs one of the largest Supreme Court practices in the world where he occupies the role formerly held by now Chief Justice John Roberts. From a legal perspective, the man is an absolute heavy hitter and one of the sharpest minds we've had on this show to date. He has orally argued 43 cases before the Supreme Court with 41 of them in the last decade. At the age of 50, he has already argued more Supreme Court cases in U.S. history than any other minority attorney, breaking the record of Thurgood Marshall. Make sure to check out his new podcast Courtside where each week Neal discusses a major Supreme Court case with a non-lawyer guest. This week it's all about the prosecution of presidents and the landmark, Morrison V. Olsen. Comedian John Mulaney joins the proceedings. on He joins us today on Mea Culpa to unpack the Target Letter and to discuss the myriad ways Trump will likely end up behind bars. 

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, we do not want common group with a Democrat party that is trying to destroy the Supreme Court, Electoral College, and hates the Constitution. Groups like No Labels is what we get from weak republicans like Larry Hogan, Asa Hutchinson, Joe Manchin, and Chris Christie - people who do not want to engage in the culture war that we're in now, even though our liberties and children are at stake. We need patriots and statesmen to fight for our country, not quislings who want to be called bipartisan even if it means the destruction of America. We stand for constitutional republicanism and they don't, which is why talk of bipartisanship with a Marxist Democrat party is a ruse and we lose every time. We must obliterate the Democrat party, not appease it, because they the enemy and there is no common ground with anyone trying to destroy America and trash its history. Also, what the Democrat party has sought to do is not just codify Roe, but pass a bill with no restrictions or obstacles whatsoever for a woman to get an abortion, even though Roe gives the government a right to regulate in the third trimester. Kamala Harris was not picked to be vice president because she was the smartest or most capable for the job, but to be the first black female VP. Listening to Harris speak about Roe today only proves it more, as she is so clueless she can't remember Thurgood Marshall's last name. Finally, the Secret Service never interviewed Hunter Biden about the cocaine found in the White House, even though he was in the White House. The Secret Service has been poisoned just like how the FBI and DOJ have been, which are all now just tools of the Democrat party.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the second Black justice to sit on the court after Thurgood Marshall, has spent years opposing affirmative action. When the high court struck down the policy last month, Justice Thomas was one of the most influential figures behind the ruling.Abbie VanSickle, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times, explains the impact affirmative action has had on Justice Thomas's life and how he helped to bring about its demise.Guest: Abbie VanSickle, a Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times.Background reading: A look at Justice Thomas's path to the Supreme Court.Here's what the justices have said in the past about affirmative action.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.