Podcasts about us supreme court

A whole mess of AI generated shownotes. Enjoy! 00:25 – Christmas in Hong Kong, KFC in JapanJoel (Jack the Insider) opens Episode 138 and checks in with Jack (Hong Kong Jack) about Hong Kong's love of Christmas shopping, surreal mall installations and the absence of nativity scenes, before detouring to Japan's KFC-at-Christmas tradition.​01:50 – Australia's world‑first social media ban for under‑16sThe Jacks unpack the new national ban on social media for under‑16s, the generational politics of Gen Alpha kids and millennial parents, and the “pick up a book, go for a bike ride” messaging from Anthony Albanese and Julie Inman Grant.​They read out Vox pops about kids discovering life without apps, YouTube‑driven body image issues, and the early scramble to alternative chat and file‑sharing apps like LemonAid.​05:35 – Social engineering, High Court challenge and mental health concernsThey describe the policy as a conscious piece of social engineering aimed at reshaping youth culture over a decade, and note the High Court challenge led by the Digital Freedom Movement and Libertarian MLC John Ruddick.​Beyond Blue, Headspace, ReachOut and the Black Dog Institute warn about cutting off access to online mental‑health support, as the Jacks weigh the internet's harms against the value of peer support communities for young people.​09:35 – Enforcement gaps, workarounds and parental resistanceThe Jacks discuss uneven implementation, with some under‑16s apparently still able to access Facebook and Instagram while other apps are wiped, and a rush into less‑regulated platforms.​They note reports that up to a third of parents will quietly help kids stay online and float the idea of a nationwide “kitchen‑table” style forum to help parents understand the risks and responsibilities around kids' social media use.​12:00 – A social experiment the world is watchingThey canvas overseas interest, with Denmark, Spain and others eyeing bans at 15 rather than 16, and Sarah Ferguson's description of Australia's move as a live “social experiment” whose results are very much unknown.​13:05 – Richo's state funeral and the dark arts of NSW Labor RightThe conversation turns to Graham “Richo” Richardson's state funeral, his reputation as Labor's master organiser and electoral numbers man, and his long life “on the public purse”.​Joel recounts Richo's link to Balmain Welding and Stan “Standover” Smith, arguing that New South Wales Labor Right's success always had a darker underbelly.​15:10 – Paul Brereton, the NACC and conflicts of interestThey examine National Anti‑Corruption Commission boss Paul Brereton's updated disclosures about his ongoing work with the Inspector‑General of the ADF and Afghanistan war‑crimes inquiries, revealed via FOI.​The Jacks question whether someone so intertwined with Defence can credibly oversee corruption matters touching Defence acquisitions, and whether carving out whole domains from his remit makes his appointment untenable.​18:25 – A quiet NACC, no perp walks and media theatreThe Jacks note how quietly the NACC has operated in Canberra—“blink and you'd miss them”—with none of the televised “perp walks” beloved of New South Wales ICAC coverage.​Jack welcomes the absence of media spectacle; Joel admits to missing the grimace‑through‑the‑cameras moment as accused figures run the gauntlet.​19:50 – Victorian youth vote turns on LaborNew polling of 18–34‑year‑olds in Victoria shows Labor's vote down 11 points to 28 per cent and the Coalition's up 17 points to 37 per cent, with the Greens steady at 20 per cent.​The Jacks argue the Victorian Labor government looks to be in terminal decline, discuss leadership options for Jacinta Allan, and canvass how quickly preference “cascades” can flip a long‑term government once momentum turns.​22:15 – Green exports vs coal, Treasury modelling under fireThey dissect Treasury modelling which suggests “green exports” (critical minerals, rare earths, battery inputs) will surpass coal and gas within a decade, and note scepticism from former Treasury official and now CBA chief economist Stephen Yeaman.​The Jacks highlight International Energy Agency updates showing coal demand in key markets staying high, and the reality that renewables growth is largely meeting new demand rather than cutting deeply into existing coal and gas use.​25:05 – Coal to 2049 and the reality of the gridJack points to Australian market operator projections that coal will remain in the domestic mix until at least 2049, while Joel questions which ageing coal plants will physically survive that long without new builds.​They agree modelling must continually be revised against actual demand profiles in China, India, Indonesia and elsewhere, where coal still supplies half or more of electricity.​27:20 – 30‑year suppression orders and transparencyThe Jacks shift to a 30‑year suppression order over evidence behind Tanya Plibersek's decision to block a $1 billion coal mine until 2055, and more broadly the proliferation of long‑term suppression orders in Australia.​They criticise the over‑use of secrecy in both environmental and criminal matters, arguing it breeds suspicion that justice and accountability can be bought by the wealthy.​28:25 – The “prominent family” sexual assault case in VictoriaWithout naming the individual, they discuss a Victorian case involving the convicted son of a prominent family whose identity remains suppressed even after guilty findings for serious sexual offences.​They worry that blanket suppression encourages rumour, misidentification and a sense that powerful people get special treatment, even when protection of victims is a legitimate concern.​30:05 – From undercover cop to gangland wars: how secrecy backfiresJoel revisits an NSW example where an undercover police officer's drink‑driving conviction was suppressed for 55 years, and Melbourne gangland cases where key cooperating witnesses remained pseudonymous for decades.​The Jacks argue that when authorities create information vacuums, gossip and conspiracy inevitably rush in to fill the space.​33:50 – MP expenses, family reunion travel and Annika Wells' bad day outThey turn to MPs' entitlements and “family reunion” travel: Annika Wells' ski‑trip optics and poor press conference performance, Don Farrell's extensive family travel, and Sarah Hanson‑Young's $50,000 in family travel for her lobbyist husband.​While acknowledging how hard federal life is—especially for WA MPs—they question where legitimate family support ends and taxpayer‑funded lifestyle begins.​37:05 – Why family reunion perks exist (and how they're abused)The Jacks recall the tragic case of Labor MP Greg Wilton as a driver for more generous family travel rules, given the emotional cost of long separations.​They conclude the system is necessary but ripe for exploitation, and note the Coalition's relatively muted response given its own exposure to the same rules.​39:15 – Diplomatic drinks trolleys: London, New York and the UNJoel notes Stephen Smith's stint as High Commissioner in London—the “ultimate drinks trolley” of Australian diplomacy—and his replacement by former SA Premier Jay Weatherill.​Jack mentions Smith's reputation for being stingy with hospitality at Australia House, in contrast to the traditionally lavish networking role of London and New York postings.​40:40 – Barnaby Joyce joins One NationThe big domestic political move: Barnaby Joyce's shift from the Nationals to One Nation, including his steak‑on‑a‑sandwich‑press dinner with Pauline Hanson.​The Jacks canvass whether Joyce runs again in New England or heads for the Senate, and the anger among New England voters who may feel abandoned.​42:25 – One Nation's growth, branch‑building and Pauline's futureThey dig into polling from Cos Samaras suggesting 39 per cent of Coalition voters say they'd be more likely to vote One Nation if Joyce led the party, and the risk of the Coalition following the UK Tories into long‑term decline.​The Jacks note One Nation's organisational maturation—building actual branches and volunteer networks in NSW and Queensland—and wonder whether Pauline Hanson herself now caps the party's potential.​45:20 – Kemi Badenoch, a revived UK Conservative Party and Reform's ceilingAttention swings to the UK, with fresh polling showing Labour slumping to the high teens, the Conservatives recovering into the high teens/low 20s, and Reform polling in the mid‑20s to low‑30s depending on the firm.​They credit new Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch for lifting morale by dominating Keir Starmer at the despatch box, but caution that Reform's rise may still be more protest than durable realignment.​49:45 – Fragmenting party systems in Europe and the UKDrawing on Michael Gove's comments, the Jacks sketch the new “four‑party” pattern across Europe—radical left/Green, social democratic, Christian Democrat centre‑right, and populist right—and argue the UK is slowly following suit.​They suggest both Labour and the Conservatives can no longer comfortably absorb all votes on their respective sides of politics, with Reform and Greens carving out durable niches.​53:05 – US seizes a Venezuelan tanker, Trump calls it the “biggest ever”The Jacks look at the US Coast Guard's seizure of a sanctioned Venezuelan oil tanker accused of moving Venezuelan and Iranian oil in support of foreign terrorist groups.​Joel notes Trump's boast that it's “the largest tanker ever seized”, while quoting Pam Bondi's more sober explanation of the sanctions basis.​54:45 – Five years of social media to enter the US?They examine a Trump‑era proposal to require even visa‑waiver travellers to provide five years of social media history before entering the United States.​The Jacks question the logistical feasibility, highlight the trend of travellers using “burner phones” for US trips, and argue measures like this would severely damage American tourism.​57:10 – SCOTUS, independent agencies and presidential powerThe Jacks discuss a pending US Supreme Court case about whether presidents can hire and fire the heads of independent agencies at will, with even liberal justices expressing sympathy for expansive executive authority.​They link this to a broader global question: how much power should be handed from elected ministers to expert regulators, and how hard it is to claw that power back once delegated.​01:00:25 – Trump's national security strategy and an abandoned EuropeThey turn to the Trump administration's new national security strategy framing Europe as both security dependent and economic competitor, and signalling an end to automatic US security guarantees.​The Jacks describe openly hostile rhetoric from Trump figures like J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio towards Europe, and portray it as part of a broader American drift into isolationism as China and Russia advance.​01:02:20 – Europe rearms: Germany, Poland and conscription talkThe conversation moves to European responses: big defence spending increases in Poland and Germany, and German plans to assess 18‑year‑olds for potential limited conscription.​Joel argues Europe may need to build its own strategic table rather than rely on a fickle US ally, while Jack stresses serious military capability is the price of a genuine seat at any table.​01:03:50 – Biden, the border and a blown political callThe Jacks examine a New York Times reconstruction of how the Biden administration mishandled southern border migration, from 75,000 encounters in January 2021 to 169,000 by March.​They say Biden officials badly underestimated both the scale of migration and the law‑and‑order backlash, including resentment from migrants who followed legal pathways.​01:07:05 – Migration then and now: Ellis Island vs the Rio GrandeJack recounts Ellis Island's history: the small but real share of arrivals turned back at ship‑owners' expense, and how many migrants later returned home despite being admitted.​They contrast a heavily regulated, ship‑based 19th‑century system with today's chaotic mix of asylum flows, cartels and porous borders, and argue that simple “open borders” rhetoric ignores complex trade‑offs.​01:09:55 – Americans know their ancestry, and that shapes the debateJoel notes how many Americans can precisely trace family arrival via Ellis Island, unlike many Australians who have fuzzier family histories.​He suggests this deep personal connection to immigration history partly explains the emotional intensity around contemporary migration and ICE enforcement.​01:10:30 – Ashes 2–0: Neeser's five‑for and Lyon's omissionSport time: Australia go 2–0 up in the Ashes with an eight‑wicket win at the Gabba.​The big call is leaving Nathan Lyon out for Michael Neser; the Jacks weigh Nesser's match‑turning 5/42 and clever use of Alex Carey standing up to the stumps against the loss of a front‑line spinner over key periods.​01:11:55 – Basball meets Australian conditionsThey discuss the limits of “Bazball” in Australia, praising Stokes and Will Jacks' rearguard while noting most English batters failed to adapt tempo to match situation.​Jack cites past blueprints for winning in Australia—long, draining innings from Alastair Cook, Cheteshwar Pujara and Rahul Dravid—that hinge on time at the crease rather than constant aggression.​01:15:05 – Keepers compared: Alex Carey vs England's glovesJoel hails Carey's performance as possibly the best keeping he's seen from an Australian in a single Test, including brilliant work standing up to the seamers and a running catch over Marnus Labuschagne.​They contrast this with England's struggling keeper, question whether Ben Foakes should have been summoned, and note Carey's age probably rules him out as a future Test captain despite his leadership qualities.​01:17:05 – England's bowling woes and Jofra Archer's limitsThe English attack looks potent in short bursts, especially Jofra Archer and Mark Wood, but lacks the endurance to bowl long, hostile spells over a five‑day Test in Australian conditions.​Archer hasn't bowled more than 10 overs in an international match for over two years, and the Jacks argue that's showing late in games as speeds drop and discipline wanes.​01:25:45 – World Cup 2026: Trump's “peace medal”, Craig Foster's critiqueSwitching codes to football, they note FIFA awarding Donald Trump a “peace” medal ahead of the 2026 World Cup and his delight in placing it on himself.​Craig Foster attacks world football for embracing a US president he accuses of human‑rights abuses, prompting the Jacks to point out FIFA's recent World Cups in Russia and Qatar hardly make it a moral authority.​01:27:20 – Seattle's Pride match… Iran vs EgyptJack tells the story of Seattle's local government declaring its allocated World Cup game a Pride match, only to discover the fixture will be Iran vs Egypt—two teams whose governments are unlikely to embrace that framing.​01:27:55 – Stadiums in the desert and the cost of spectacleJoel reflects on vast, underused stadiums in the Gulf built for the World Cup and now often almost empty, using a low‑attendance cricket game in Abu Dhabi as an example of mega‑event over‑build.​01:29:05 – Wrapping up and previewing the final show of 2025The Jacks close Episode 138 by flagging one more episode before Christmas, thanking listeners for feedback—especially stories around the social media ban—and promising to return with more politics, law and sport next week.​a

This Day in Legal History: West Coast HotelOn December 16, 1936, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, a case that would become a cornerstone in constitutional law and mark a significant turning point in the Court's approach to economic regulation. At issue was the constitutionality of Washington State's minimum wage law for women, which had been challenged by the West Coast Hotel Company after Elsie Parrish, a maid, sued for back wages.The case arrived during a period when the Court had consistently struck down New Deal-era economic regulations, relying on a broad interpretation of “freedom of contract” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Earlier cases like Lochner v. New York had enshrined a judicial skepticism toward government interference in labor and wage arrangements.However, in Parrish, the Court's posture shifted. The eventual decision, handed down in 1937, upheld the minimum wage law, effectively signaling the end of the so-called Lochner era. The majority reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the health and well-being of workers, particularly vulnerable low-wage employees.Justice Owen Roberts, who had previously sided with the Court's conservative bloc, voted with the majority—his move later came to be known as “the switch in time that saved nine,” as it followed President Roosevelt's controversial proposal to expand the Court.The decision validated broader governmental authority to regulate the economy, and it cleared the path for many New Deal policies to take root. It also marked a recalibration in the balance between individual economic liberty and the public interest.West Coast Hotel remains a landmark case in US constitutional history, exemplifying how judicial interpretation can evolve in response to changing social and economic realities.The 2025 tax-and-spending law introduced an overtime tax deduction that was billed as relief for overworked, working-class Americans. But the reality shaping up for the 2026 filing season is far more complicated—and far less beneficial—than its political framing suggested. The deduction does not exempt overtime pay from taxation; instead, it offers a narrow, post-withholding deduction that workers must calculate themselves, often without support from their employers or sufficient guidance from the IRS.The structure of the deduction is flawed: it only applies to the “half” portion of time-and-a-half pay and is capped at $12,500. For lower-wage workers to take full advantage, they must clock extraordinary amounts of overtime—something not feasible for many. Meanwhile, employers are actively disincentivized from helping employees understand or claim the benefit. If they report eligibility and make an error, they could face legal penalties, while doing nothing carries no risk. The system thus favors inaction and leaves employees to fend for themselves.Without clear W-2 guidance or safe harbor rules, the deduction becomes accessible primarily to those with tax professionals or payroll tools—functioning as a quiet subsidy for the well-advised. For others, it's a bureaucratic maze with limited reward. To prevent administrative failure, the IRS should at least provide a legal safe harbor for employers and model W-2 language. A more ambitious fix would be a flat-rate standard deduction for eligible workers, reducing complexity. Until then, this “relief” policy punishes transparency, discourages compliance, and places the greatest burden on those with the fewest resources.Trump Overtime Tax Break More a Political Tagline Than Tax ReliefDonald Trump filed a lawsuit in federal court in Miami seeking up to $10 billion in damages from the BBC, alleging defamation and violation of Florida's unfair trade practices law. The suit stems from an edited segment in a BBC Panorama documentary that combined parts of Trump's January 6, 2021 speech—specifically his calls to “march on the Capitol” and to “fight like hell”—while omitting language where he encouraged peaceful protest. Trump claims the edit falsely portrayed him as inciting violence and caused substantial reputational and financial harm.The BBC had previously admitted to an error in editing, apologized publicly, and acknowledged the clip could give a misleading impression. However, the broadcaster argues that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit. UK officials have backed the BBC's position, saying it has taken appropriate steps. Despite this, Trump's legal team claims the broadcaster has shown no real remorse and continues to engage in what they describe as politically motivated misrepresentation.The documentary in question aired before the 2024 U.S. presidential election and triggered significant fallout for the BBC, including the resignations of its top two executives. While the program did not air in the U.S., it was available via BritBox—a BBC-controlled streaming service—and possibly distributed in North America through licensing deals with Canadian firm Blue Ant Media.Legal experts say Trump faces a high bar in U.S. courts under First Amendment standards. He must prove not only that the edited content was false and defamatory, but also that the BBC acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. The BBC may argue that the content was substantially accurate and did not materially harm Trump's reputation. Other networks, including CBS and ABC, previously settled defamation claims with Trump after his 2024 election victory.Trump seeks up to $10 billion in damages from BBC over editing of January 6 speech | ReutersU.S. law school enrollment surged 8% in 2025, reaching a 13-year high with 42,817 first-year students, according to new data from the American Bar Association. The increase follows an 18% rise in law school applicants and continues a multi-year upward trend, fueled by a mix of economic uncertainty, political intensity, and a growing interest in legal careers. The sluggish job market for college graduates, coupled with the centrality of legal issues during Donald Trump's second presidential term, has contributed to renewed interest in law degrees.A significant number of prospective students also cited personal and social motivations. A survey of 15,000 LSAT takers found rising interest in using law degrees to “help others” and “advocate for social justice,” with both reasons seeing double-digit percentage increases over last year. The pool of LSAT test-takers has grown as well, signaling likely continued enrollment growth in 2026.Some elite law schools, including Harvard, enrolled their largest first-year classes in over a decade. However, the long-term outlook remains uncertain. Legal employment has been strong in recent years, with the class of 2024 posting record job placement, but experts warn that advances in artificial intelligence could reduce demand for new associates—particularly at large firms offering high salaries. Smaller sectors like government and public interest law may struggle to absorb excess graduates if hiring slows.US job market, politics fuel 8% surge in law school enrollment | ReutersDonald Trump's controversial plan to build a $300 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom on the White House grounds is facing its first legal challenge in federal court. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued Trump and several federal agencies, alleging that the demolition of the East Wing to make way for the ballroom violated multiple preservation laws and bypassed required reviews. The group is seeking a temporary restraining order to halt ongoing construction, citing irreversible damage to the historic structure.Since returning to office in January, Trump has made high-profile aesthetic changes to the White House, including installing gold accents in the Oval Office and converting the Rose Garden lawn into a patio modeled after Mar-a-Lago. But the scale and visibility of the ballroom project has drawn particularly intense criticism, especially as heavy machinery was seen dismantling the 120-year-old East Wing.The lawsuit argues that no president, including Trump, has the unilateral authority to alter protected parts of the White House without following procedures involving public input and reviews by agencies like the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts.The administration defended the project as lawful, citing historical precedent and presidential authority to modify the executive residence. It emphasized that above-ground construction was not scheduled to begin until April, rendering emergency relief unnecessary. Still, the National Trust contends that public consultation and proper approvals are not optional and must be upheld regardless of the project's timeline or presidential status.Trump's $300 million White House ballroom makeover faces day in court | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must extend the deadline for states to implement new immigration-related restrictions on food aid benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai in Oregon, came in response to a lawsuit brought by 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. The states argued they were not given adequate time or clarity to comply with the new rules, which were tied to President Donald Trump's domestic policy legislation passed in July.The USDA had initially set a November 1 deadline for states to comply with the restrictions, which limit SNAP benefits to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. However, the guidance issued on October 31 created confusion by implying that some lawful residents—such as those who entered the U.S. as asylees or refugees—were ineligible, contrary to what the law allowed. The USDA later revised the guidance, but still maintained the November 1 deadline.Judge Kasubhai extended the grace period for compliance until April 9, finding the original deadline arbitrary and harmful to state budgets. He noted that the USDA's sudden guidance rollout undermined states' ability to respond and eroded trust in federal-state cooperation. The ruling blocks the USDA from penalizing states that don't meet the earlier deadline while the lawsuit proceeds.USDA must give states more time to implement new food aid restrictions, judge rules | 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

This podcast is on the life and work of Thurgood Marshall. Most of us know Thurgood Marshall as the first black justice of the US Supreme Court, but we do not know is the road he took to get into that role.  We discuss how he bacame a lawyer, the many influences in his life, his time at the NAACP, and how he came to be a Supreme Court Justice. Take a listen, there is always more to learn, Jimmy & Jean

Missouri is currently in the midst of a titanic battle over a map that seeks to transform Congressman Emanuel Cleaver's 5th Congressional District into a GOP-leaning seat. But depending on what the U.S. Supreme Court does to the Voting Rights Act, there could be another fight in the near future over the traditionally African-American 1st Congressional District in St. Louis. STLPR's Jason Rosenbaum talks with state Rep. LaKeySha Bosley on the latest episode of the Politically Speaking Hour on St. Louis on the Air.

On the latest episode of the Politically Speaking Hour on St. Louis on the Air, STLPR's Jason Rosenbaum deconstructs an avalanche of Missouri redistricting news over the past week. He also spoke with state Rep. LaKeySha Bosley about why the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the Voting Rights Act could provoke major changes to the traditionally African-American 1st Congressional District. And finally, Rosenbaum (who happens to be a Buffalo Grove, IL, native) talks with Capitol News Illinois' Brenden Moore about the race to succeed U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin.

Why the Court's majority is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 9 in a series) about the faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act --This continues to be a real hoot. Part 9: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We continue discussing the Republican dissenting opinion of Justice Alito (joined by Thomas) from his Roman numeral I.B through his II.C, stopping at but not commencing his II.D. We'll have one more episode of Alito's dissent (joined by Thomas) and and then one further one on Kavanaugh's dissent, so two more episodes on this Supreme Court case. Part 9. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

On episode 109 of Native Land Pod, hosts Tiffany Cross, Angela Rye, Andrew Gillum, and Bakari Sellers discuss Jasmine Crockett’s campaign launch, and bring on one of our favorite guests: Elie Mystal. Racial profiling, birthright citizenship, executive power, and campaign finance are all up for judgement by the US Supreme Court. There’s no one better to walk us through SCOTUS’s recent and upcoming decisions than the Justice Correspondent for The Nation, Elie Mystal. Elie on Executive Power: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-ftc-slaughter/ Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (TX 30) is running for senate in Texas in 2026. There’s a lot of chatter out there about her announcement, that she’s a Republican plant, that she can’t win–and it’s true that it’s tough for a Dem to win a senate seat in Texas. Our hosts take a critical look at the media coverage of her announcement and speculate on a possible path to victory. We’ll get to more of your questions this week, including one about legacy media’s complicity in the Trump administration's agenda. A lot of y’all had smoke for Tiffany in the questions this week, we’ll get to those in our MiniPod. Read More about the recent SCOTUS cases– Racial Profiling: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-allows-federal-officers-to-more-freely-make-immigration-stops-in-los-angeles/ Birthright Citizenship: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-barbara/ Campaign Finance: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/national-republican-senatorial-committee-v-federal-election-commission/ Federal Agency Independence (Executive Power): https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-slaughter-2/ Check out the Council of Negro Women: https://ncnw.org/ And congratulations to A’Ja Wilson for winning TIME’s Athlete of the Year! If you’d like to submit a question, check out our tutorial video: http://www.instagram.com/reel/C5j_oBXLIg0/ and send to @nativelandpod. We are 329 days away from the midterm elections. Welcome home y’all! —--------- We want to hear from you! Send us a video @nativelandpod and we may feature you on the podcast. Instagram X/Twitter Facebook NativeLandPod.com Watch full episodes of Native Land Pod here on YouTube. Native Land Pod is brought to you by Reasoned Choice Media. Thank you to the Native Land Pod team: Angela Rye as host, executive producer, and cofounder of Reasoned Choice Media; Tiffany Cross as host and producer, Andrew Gillum as host and producer, Bakari Sellers as host and producer, and Lauren Hansen as executive producer; LoLo Mychael is our research producer, and Nikolas Harter is our editor and producer. Special thanks to Chris Morrow and Lenard McKelvey, co-founders of Reasoned Choice Media. Theme music created by Daniel Laurent.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Part 1:We talk with Mark Joseph Stern, Slate Senior Writer.We discuss the actions of the US Supreme Court, and the cases they are now considering. Vaccinations for schoolchildren, religious exemptions to health initiatives, the power of the president with respect to dismissing the heads of independent agencies.Part 2:We talk with Susan Milligan, Contributing Editor, The New Republic.We discuss how large corporations who publish emissions data have been inaccurate in these publications, and the implications for climate effects. Often, executive compensation is linked to 'good' reports', but these are not accurate, and often revised after they have been published. These publications are voluntary, though may become mandatory in California, the fourth biggest economy in the world.  WNHNFM.ORG  productionMusic: David Rovics

This episode is presented by Create A Video – In oral arguments at the US Supreme Court this week, Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson argued that "independent agencies" should be outside the control of the executive branch - essentially creating a fourth branch of government. Which is kind of insane. Subscribe to the podcast at: https://ThePetePod.com/ All the links to Pete's Prep are free: https://patreon.com/petekalinershow Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code! Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com Get exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Civil Procedure: Does §47(b) of the Investment Company Act create a private right of action? - Argued: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 15:54:12 EDT

Death Penalty: Whether and how may courts consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim? - Argued: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 15:50:58 EDT

In the second hour, we have Civic Media's own Jim Santelle here on a different day, but talking about all the important stories coming out of the world of law. He discusses a case before The US Supreme Court which may hand even more power over to the president and what this means for the government as an entity and those who would give up power to redesign this country. For Audio Sorbet, we are almost to the end of the road for Jane and that's why we have on Tony Lorino stopping by to share some stories of the old days! Let's close this show out right with This Shouldn't Be A Thing - All I Want For Xmas Edition. As always, thank you for listening, texting and calling, we couldn't do this without you! Don't forget to download the free Civic Media app and take us wherever you are in the world! Matenaer On Air is a part of the Civic Media radio network and airs weekday mornings from 9-11 across the state. Subscribe to the podcast to be sure not to miss out on a single episode! You can also rate us on your podcast distribution center of choice. It goes a long way!

This Day in Legal History: Gregory v. ChicagoOn this day in legal history, December 10, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Gregory v. City of Chicago, a case involving the arrest of civil rights demonstrators under a local disorderly conduct ordinance. The demonstrators, led by comedian and activist Dick Gregory, had peacefully marched from Chicago's City Hall to the home of Mayor Richard J. Daley to protest school segregation. Though the march itself remained nonviolent, an unruly crowd of onlookers gathered, prompting police to demand that the demonstrators disperse. When they refused, Gregory and others were arrested and later convicted of disorderly conduct.The key legal issue before the Court was whether the demonstrators' First Amendment rights had been violated when they were punished for the hostile reactions of bystanders. In a per curiam opinion issued the following year, the Court reversed the convictions, holding that the peaceful demonstrators could not be held criminally liable for the disruptive behavior of others. Justice Black, concurring, emphasized that the First Amendment protects peaceful expression even in the face of public opposition or discomfort.The case is a critical reaffirmation of the “heckler's veto” doctrine — the principle that the government cannot suppress speech simply because it provokes a hostile reaction. It underscored the constitutional duty to protect unpopular or provocative speech, especially in the context of civil rights protests. The Court's decision also reinforced the due process requirement that criminal statutes must be applied in a way that is not arbitrary or overbroad.Gregory v. City of Chicago remains a foundational case in First Amendment jurisprudence and protest law, balancing public order concerns against the fundamental rights of assembly and expression.The Trump administration's proposed repeal of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) definition of “harm” could significantly weaken protections for imperiled species in federally managed forests, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. The change would limit the ESA's scope to cover only direct physical injury to species, excluding habitat destruction from regulation. Environmental groups argue this could devastate species like the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, both of which depend on old-growth forests increasingly targeted for logging under recent federal mandates. Legal experts warn that without habitat protections, ESA enforcement becomes largely ineffective, as species cannot survive without suitable environments. The rollback is expected to reduce permitting requirements for developers and extractive industries, a move welcomed by business groups but opposed by conservationists.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initially defined “harm” in 1981 to include habitat degradation, but now argues that interpretation overextends the ESA's intent. Logging has already surged in owl and murrelet habitats, especially in Oregon, with timber sales up 20% in 2025. Population declines among spotted owls—down 70% since 1990—are linked to habitat loss and competition from invasive barred owls. Critics of the repeal emphasize that previous conservation plans, like the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, successfully slowed species decline by curbing old-growth logging. Industry groups argue the ESA has been “weaponized” to block necessary forest management and wildfire prevention. Meanwhile, lawsuits are brewing on both sides: environmentalists are expected to challenge the rollback, while timber interests seek to overturn broader habitat protections.Trump's Changes to What Harms Species Adds Risk in Logging AreasThe U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear a case involving Joseph Clifton Smith, an Alabama death row inmate whose death sentence was overturned after a federal court found him intellectually disabled. The dispute centers on how courts should interpret multiple IQ scores and other evidence when determining whether someone meets the legal criteria for intellectual disability. This analysis is critical because, in 2002's Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.Smith, now 55, was sentenced to death for the 1997 killing of Durk Van Dam during a robbery. His IQ scores have ranged from 72 to 78, but the lower court applied the standard margin of error, concluding his true score could fall below 70. The court also found substantial, lifelong deficits in adaptive functioning, including challenges in social skills, independent living, and academics. These findings led the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the decision to set aside his death sentence.Alabama officials argue the courts erred by evaluating Smith's IQ scores collectively rather than individually. The Supreme Court previously asked the 11th Circuit to clarify its reasoning, and the court responded that it used a holistic approach, incorporating expert testimony and broader evidence of disability. Now back before the Supreme Court, the case could refine or reshape how courts nationwide assess intellectual disability in capital cases. A ruling is expected by June.US Supreme Court to weigh death row inmate's intellectual disability ruling | ReutersJack Smith, the former special counsel who led federal prosecutions against Donald Trump, is launching a new law firm alongside three other high-profile former prosecutors: Tim Heaphy, David Harbach, and Thomas Windom. All four attorneys have extensive backgrounds in public service and were involved in major investigations into Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling of classified documents. The new firm, expected to begin operations in January, will offer full-service legal work, including litigation and investigations, with a mission rooted in integrity and zealous advocacy.Heaphy, who previously served as the lead investigator for the House committee probing the January 6th Capitol attack, is leaving his position at Willkie Farr & Gallagher to help found the firm. That firm had drawn criticism for its dealings with Trump but has defended its actions. The Justice Department and members of the new firm declined to comment on the launch.Smith had dropped the Trump prosecutions following Trump's 2024 election win, citing the DOJ's policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Trump's administration has since condemned those cases, firing multiple DOJ and FBI officials and claiming political bias. Smith maintains the investigations were legitimate and nonpartisan. He is expected to testify behind closed doors before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee next week.Trump prosecutor Jack Smith to launch firm with ex-Justice Department lawyers | ReutersThe U.S. Justice Department has announced new federal charges against Victoria Eduardovna Dubranova, a Ukrainian national accused of aiding Russian-aligned cyberattack groups targeting critical infrastructure. The latest indictment, filed in Los Angeles, links Dubranova to the group NoName057(16), which prosecutors say has carried out hundreds of cyberattacks globally, many aimed at essential services like food and water systems. These alleged actions are said to pose serious national security risks.Dubranova had already been extradited to the U.S. earlier in 2025 to face charges related to another Russian-backed hacking group known as CyberArmyofRussia_Reborn (CARR). She now faces conspiracy charges in both cases and has pleaded not guilty. Trials are scheduled for February 2026 (NoName) and April 2026 (CARR). Prosecutors allege both groups receive financial backing from the Russian government, though the Russian embassy has not commented on the case.The Justice Department emphasized that it will continue to pursue cyber threats tied to state-sponsored or proxy actors. The U.S. State Department is offering up to $10 million for information on NoName operatives and up to $2 million for tips on CARR affiliates.Justice Department unveils new charges in alleged Russia-backed cyberattacks | 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

On this new episode of THE POLITICRAT daily podcast the birthday boy Omar Moore on the US Supreme Court on the verge of eviscerating congressional power for Donald Trump; farmers who keep voting for Trump and keep getting screwed over by him; and much more, including Pete Hegseth and what appears to inescapably be the outright murder by him of fishermen in the Caribbean Sea.Recorded December 9, 2025.SUBSCRIBE: https://mooreo.substack.comSUBSCRIBE: https://youtube.com/@thepoliticratpodSUBSCRIBE: https://politicrat.substack.comRECOMMENDED READ:"Federal freeze impacts: Farmers and organizations speak out" (National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Feb 28, 2025) :https://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/funding-freeze-impacts-farmers-and-organizations-speak-out/BUY MERCH FROM THE POLITICRAT STORE: https://the-politicrat.myshopify.comMUST-READ: "Some Ways To Improve Your Mental Health..." (Written on August 24, 2025) : https://open.substack.com/pub/mooreo/p/here-are-some-of-the-ways-you-can?r=275tyr&utm_medium=iosBUY BLACK!Patronize Black-owned businesses on Roland Martin's Black Star Network: https://shopblackstarnetwork.comBLACK-OWNED MEDIA MATTERS: (Watch Roland Martin Unfiltered daily M-F 6-8pm Eastern)https://youtube.com/rolandsmartin

Election Law: Do limits on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment in connection with party coordinated communications? - Argued: Tue, 09 Dec 2025 13:48:55 EDT

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Intervenes in 2000 Presidential ElectionOn this day in legal history, December 9, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in the presidential election with a pivotal order in Bush v. Gore. The Court issued a 5-4 decision to halt the manual recount of ballots in Florida, which had been ordered by the Florida Supreme Court due to the razor-thin margin between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The justices cited potential violations of the Equal Protection Clause, expressing concern that differing standards across counties for evaluating ballots could lead to unequal treatment of voters.The per curiam order did not decide the case outright but signaled deep skepticism about the recount process, effectively pausing it while the Court considered broader constitutional questions. This stay was the first significant sign that the nation's highest court might ultimately decide the outcome of the 2000 election. Three days later, the Court would issue its final ruling, effectively awarding Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush and securing his presidency.The December 9 order was controversial not only for its impact on the election but for its constitutional implications. Critics argued the Court had overstepped by interfering in a state-managed election process, while supporters claimed it was necessary to ensure legal consistency and fairness. The episode raised enduring questions about the judiciary's role in democratic governance and electoral integrity.The Court's use of the Equal Protection Clause in this context was novel and has rarely been invoked in similar cases since. The justices themselves noted that the ruling was limited to the specific circumstances of the 2000 election. Nevertheless, the decision left a lasting mark on American law and politics, serving as a stark example of how constitutional interpretation can intersect with high-stakes political conflict.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a major challenge to federal campaign finance limits in a case involving Vice President JD Vance and two Republican political committees. The case targets restrictions on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates they support, with plaintiffs arguing that these limits violate the First Amendment's free speech protections. The legal challenge stems from a 2022 lawsuit filed while Vance was running for Senate in Ohio.At issue are “coordinated party expenditure limits” under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which differentiates between independent spending (unlimited) and coordinated spending (restricted). The challengers argue that the current rules unconstitutionally restrict political speech by capping how much support a party can directly offer its candidates. In contrast, Roman Martinez, appointed by the Court to defend the law after the Trump-aligned FEC declined to do so, argues that without these limits, parties could act as loopholes for donors to evade individual contribution caps—raising corruption risks.A lower court upheld the law, citing a 2001 Supreme Court precedent, but the challengers now argue that subsequent changes in campaign finance law—especially since Citizens United—warrant a reassessment. Three Democratic campaign committees have joined the case to defend the law, represented by attorney Marc Elias. The outcome could significantly reshape the balance between campaign finance regulation and political speech, especially in high-stakes federal elections.US Supreme Court weighs challenge to campaign spending curbs in JD Vance case | ReutersMassachusetts is taking legal action to block Kalshi, a prediction-market platform, from allowing residents to bet on sports outcomes, arguing the company is operating as an unlicensed gambling business. Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell is seeking a preliminary injunction in state court to stop Kalshi's operations in Massachusetts, marking the first time a U.S. state has pursued a court order against the platform. At least nine other states have issued cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, but none have yet gone this far.Kalshi offers users the ability to buy “event contracts” on the outcomes of various occurrences—including sporting events—through a platform regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The company maintains that its activities are legal under federal law, claiming its contracts are financial derivatives (swaps), not wagers, and thus fall outside the scope of state gambling laws.Massachusetts disagrees, alleging that Kalshi is effectively offering sports betting to users, including individuals as young as 18—below the state's legal betting age of 21. The case highlights a growing tension between federal financial regulation and state-level gambling laws. Kalshi's position has already faced judicial setbacks: federal judges in Nevada and Maryland have ruled that state gambling laws apply to Kalshi's operations, though those decisions are under appeal. Meanwhile, the company has pending legal challenges against other states, including New York and Connecticut.Massachusetts seeks to block Kalshi from operating sports-prediction market | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the Loudoun County School Board in Virginia, challenging its policy that allows transgender students to use locker rooms aligned with their gender identity. The DOJ claims the policy violates the constitutional rights of religious students who object to “gender ideology,” framing the case as a denial of equal protection rooted in religious freedom concerns. This lawsuit is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to roll back transgender-inclusive policies in schools, sports, and the military.The Loudoun County school board has maintained its gender policy despite federal pressure, citing prior court rulings supporting the rights of transgender students to use facilities aligned with their identity. Critics, including state officials, claim the school has retaliated against students and parents who objected to the policy, particularly in cases involving locker room complaints.The case represents a new front in an escalating legal and political campaign to police gender expression and access, using constitutional arguments around religion and sex-based rights to challenge trans inclusion in public spaces. This comes amid a broader moral panic over gender identity, echoing the structure and rhetoric of the 1980s satanic panic—but with even more tangible consequences, especially for already marginalized transgender youth. While the panic of that earlier era was rooted in fabricated threats, today's version is targeting real people, shaping policies that affect their education, safety, and public presence.US Justice Department sues Virginia school board over transgender use of locker rooms | ReutersIn my latest column for Bloomberg Tax, I argue that Texas' new sales tax sourcing rules expose the shaky logic behind decades of municipal incentives for fulfillment centers—and offer a timely reason to abandon the practice altogether. The recent revision to Rule 3.334 by the Texas Comptroller clarifies that a location must actively receive customer orders—not merely fulfill them—to count as a “place of business” for local tax purposes. That change has triggered a lawsuit from the City of Coppell and other Texas municipalities, who now stand to lose out on lucrative sales tax revenue tied to online commerce routed through local warehouses.But regardless of the lawsuit's outcome, I believe the real issue is the flawed economic development model these cities have been relying on. For years, under Chapter 380 agreements, municipalities handed out infrastructure upgrades and tax rebates to lure backend logistics operations with promises of rising sales tax revenue. Yet these facilities, often low-wage, temporary, and increasingly automated, were never a strong foundation for community growth. Their value was always tied to creative interpretations of tax code language—not meaningful employment or local investment.Now that the tax arbitrage game is falling apart, municipalities should see this as an opportunity to rethink their approach. I argue for redirecting public resources toward workforce development, technical training, and support for regionally rooted industries—investments that actually build capacity, not just capture transactional flows. If a city's financial health depends on how an e-commerce order is defined in the tax code, that's not economic development—it's dependence.Texas Sales Tax Sourcing Fight Is More Reason to Drop Incentives 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

How many justices currently sit on the US Supreme Court? Play. Share. Listen with Netflix's 'Owning Manhattan' Ryan Serhant.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Mounting court challenges against Pres. Trump's earliest executive orders will soon be resolved by the US Supreme Court. An overarching theme is the accountability of federal bureaucracies, employee incompetence, and the ability of the President to guide the government. Perspective and commentary on this and all the morning's biggest news stories for 12-8-25

Good afternoon, I'm _____ with today's episode of EZ News. Tai-Ex opening The Tai-Ex opened up 60-points this morning from yesterday's close, at 28,364 on turnover of 10.5-billion N-T. The market gained solid ground on Monday after surpassing the 28,000 point mark in early trading on the back of strong investor interest in electronic and semiconductor heavyweights. US Congress revises bill allocating Taiwan security funding The U-S Congress has released a new draft of the National Defense Authorization Act - which includes up to 1-billion U-S dollars in funding for Taiwan-related security cooperation in 2026. The new draft removes earlier language that would have invited Taiwan to participate in the US-led Rim of the Pacific Exercise. The bill will require the U-S defense secretary to "enable fielding of uncrewed (無人的) and anti-uncrewed systems capabilities" with Taiwan by March 1 of next year, and those systems must comply with the Taiwan Relations Act and be usable by both U-S and Taiwanese forces. The compromise version was produced after the U-S.Senate and House of Representatives reconciled their separate versions into a unified bill. Taiwan forms clinical trial alliance to accelerate access to new medicines Taiwan has launched a new clinical trial alliance aimed at coordinating medical institutions nationwide to help patients gain faster access to promising but not yet approved medicines. The Taiwan Alliance of Clinical Trial Centers has been initiated by the Taipei Medical University. It brings together 32 medical and research institutions nationwide and is backed by the government and aims to pool resources (共用資源), strengthen coordination and enhance Taiwan's international competitiveness. Health Minister Shih Chung-liang says the alliance is expected to boost international collaboration by encouraging pharmaceutical companies to choose Taiwan as a base for research and development. Japan Tsunami Warning Lifted After Quake A magnitude 7.5 earthquake has struck off northern Japan, injuring at least 30 people and triggering (觸發) a tsunami. The quake hit late on Monday, about 80 kilometers off the coast of the Aomori region. The public broadcaster NHK says all tsunami warnings have now been lifted, while waves up to 70 centimeters were reported. The Fire and Disaster Management Agency says people were mostly injured by falling objects. Nuclear power plants are conducting safety checks, and some train services are suspended. The Japan Meteorological Agency warned of possible aftershocks and an increased risk of a megaquake. Supreme Court weighs whether President Trump can fire heads of independent agencies The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether President Donald Trump has the authority to fire a top Federal Trade Commission official - in a case that could have far reaching consequences for independent regulators. FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter was ousted earlier this year - told that her service was "inconsistent (不一致的) with the Administration's priorities". Toni Waterman reports That was the I.C.R.T. EZ News, I'm _____. －－－－以下為 SoundOn 動態廣告－－－－ 全台南最多分店、最齊全物件，在地團隊懂台南，也懂你的需求。 不管是買屋、賣屋，還是從築夢到圓夢， 房子的大小事，交給台南住商，讓你更安心。 了解更多：https://sofm.pse.is/8fuar9 -- 你不理財，財不理你！想學理財，玉山罩你！ 玉山銀行全新Podcast節目《玉山學堂》 帶你深入淺出掌握每週市場脈動！ 還有知名主持人蔡尚樺領銜的跨世代對談， 從不同的角度打好理財基本功！ 現在就點擊連結收聽

Exploring 500 years of protest and resistance in US history—and how its force is foundational and can empower us to navigate our chaotic world In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, revealing how protest has shaped our nation and remains a vital force for change today. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2026) gives voice to those who pushed back against the mistreatment of others, themselves, and in some instances planet Earth. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life, backgrounds, and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. Those stories include those of: Wahunsenacock, more commonly known to history as Chief Powhatan, who took on English invaders in pre-colonial America in 1607; legendary boxer Muhammad Ali who refused to be inducted into the US military during the Vietnam era and appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court; and David Buckel, LGBTQ+ rights lawyer and environmental activist who protested against fossil fuels by committing self-immolation in 2018. Regardless of whether these protests accomplished their end goals, Browne-Marshall reminds us that dissent is always meaningful and impactful. In fact, reading this book is an act of protest. Find Professor Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. And find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack where she and Gloria continued their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

Administrative Law: Must the president be able to terminate all officers of the United States at will? - Argued: Mon, 08 Dec 2025 16:40:50 EDT

Exploring 500 years of protest and resistance in US history—and how its force is foundational and can empower us to navigate our chaotic world In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, revealing how protest has shaped our nation and remains a vital force for change today. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2026) gives voice to those who pushed back against the mistreatment of others, themselves, and in some instances planet Earth. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life, backgrounds, and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. Those stories include those of: Wahunsenacock, more commonly known to history as Chief Powhatan, who took on English invaders in pre-colonial America in 1607; legendary boxer Muhammad Ali who refused to be inducted into the US military during the Vietnam era and appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court; and David Buckel, LGBTQ+ rights lawyer and environmental activist who protested against fossil fuels by committing self-immolation in 2018. Regardless of whether these protests accomplished their end goals, Browne-Marshall reminds us that dissent is always meaningful and impactful. In fact, reading this book is an act of protest. Find Professor Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. And find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack where she and Gloria continued their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Exploring 500 years of protest and resistance in US history—and how its force is foundational and can empower us to navigate our chaotic world In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, revealing how protest has shaped our nation and remains a vital force for change today. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2026) gives voice to those who pushed back against the mistreatment of others, themselves, and in some instances planet Earth. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life, backgrounds, and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. Those stories include those of: Wahunsenacock, more commonly known to history as Chief Powhatan, who took on English invaders in pre-colonial America in 1607; legendary boxer Muhammad Ali who refused to be inducted into the US military during the Vietnam era and appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court; and David Buckel, LGBTQ+ rights lawyer and environmental activist who protested against fossil fuels by committing self-immolation in 2018. Regardless of whether these protests accomplished their end goals, Browne-Marshall reminds us that dissent is always meaningful and impactful. In fact, reading this book is an act of protest. Find Professor Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. And find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack where she and Gloria continued their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Exploring 500 years of protest and resistance in US history—and how its force is foundational and can empower us to navigate our chaotic world In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, revealing how protest has shaped our nation and remains a vital force for change today. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2026) gives voice to those who pushed back against the mistreatment of others, themselves, and in some instances planet Earth. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life, backgrounds, and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. Those stories include those of: Wahunsenacock, more commonly known to history as Chief Powhatan, who took on English invaders in pre-colonial America in 1607; legendary boxer Muhammad Ali who refused to be inducted into the US military during the Vietnam era and appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court; and David Buckel, LGBTQ+ rights lawyer and environmental activist who protested against fossil fuels by committing self-immolation in 2018. Regardless of whether these protests accomplished their end goals, Browne-Marshall reminds us that dissent is always meaningful and impactful. In fact, reading this book is an act of protest. Find Professor Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. And find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack where she and Gloria continued their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/native-american-studies

Exploring 500 years of protest and resistance in US history—and how its force is foundational and can empower us to navigate our chaotic world In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, revealing how protest has shaped our nation and remains a vital force for change today. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2026) gives voice to those who pushed back against the mistreatment of others, themselves, and in some instances planet Earth. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life, backgrounds, and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. Those stories include those of: Wahunsenacock, more commonly known to history as Chief Powhatan, who took on English invaders in pre-colonial America in 1607; legendary boxer Muhammad Ali who refused to be inducted into the US military during the Vietnam era and appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court; and David Buckel, LGBTQ+ rights lawyer and environmental activist who protested against fossil fuels by committing self-immolation in 2018. Regardless of whether these protests accomplished their end goals, Browne-Marshall reminds us that dissent is always meaningful and impactful. In fact, reading this book is an act of protest. Find Professor Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. And find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack where she and Gloria continued their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

Lionshare's Dave Buehring talks about how we can help introduce, even re-introduce, people to Jesus during the Christmas season.  Then, Carmen LaBerge opens the Monday Mailbag to address the headlines around the social service scandal in Minnesota and the case before the US Supreme Court around birthright citizenship.  How do we apply God's word to them?   The Reconnect with Carmen and all Faith Radio podcasts are made possible by your support. Give now: Click here

This Day in Legal History: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr's Kid Sworn in as JusticeOn December 8, 1902, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was sworn in as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning one of the most storied judicial careers in American history. Appointed by President Theodore Roosevelt, Holmes brought not just legal brilliance but a fierce sense of independence to the bench—qualities that would define his nearly 30-year tenure. He would become known as “The Great Dissenter,” not because he loved conflict, but because he saw the Constitution as a living document that demanded humility, skepticism of dogma, and above all, respect for democratic governance.Holmes shaped modern constitutional law, particularly in his groundbreaking First Amendment opinions. In Schenck v. United States (1919), he famously coined the “clear and present danger” test, establishing a foundational limit on government power to suppress speech. Though that decision upheld a conviction, Holmes's dissent later that year in Abrams v. United States marked his turn toward a much broader vision of free expression—one that laid the groundwork for modern civil liberties jurisprudence.A Civil War veteran wounded at Antietam, Holmes served with the Massachusetts Volunteers and carried shrapnel in his body for the rest of his life. His long memory gave him historical depth: legend holds he met both Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy—Lincoln as a young Union officer in Washington, and JFK decades later when the future president visited the aged Holmes on his 90th birthday. While the Lincoln meeting is plausible and widely accepted, the Kennedy encounter is well documented—photos exist of JFK visiting Holmes in 1932, shortly before the justice's death.Holmes's legal philosophy emphasized restraint, often reminding fellow jurists that the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” He resisted turning the judiciary into a super-legislature, warning against confusing personal preference with constitutional mandate. His opinions, dissents, and aphorisms—“taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” among them—still echo in courtrooms and classrooms today.By the time he retired in 1932 at age 90, Holmes had become an icon: not just a jurist, but a symbol of intellectual honesty and constitutional humility. His December 8 appointment wasn't just another judicial swearing-in—it was the beginning of a philosophical legacy that still defines the boundaries of American legal thought.Amit Agarwal, a former clerk to Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, will soon find himself arguing against the very ideology he once clerked under—defending limits on presidential power in a case that could gut a nearly century-old precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). He'll be representing former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who sued after President Trump gave her the boot, and whose case now tees up a potentially seismic shift in how presidents control independent agencies.At issue is whether the president can remove members of independent commissions—like the FTC—at will, or whether statutory “for cause” protections, created by Congress and upheld since the New Deal, still mean anything. If the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor, it would blow a hole in the legal framework that has shielded multi-member agencies from raw political interference since Roosevelt tried—and failed—to remake the FTC in his own image.Let's pause here: Humphrey's Executor isn't just some dusty New Deal relic. It drew a sharp line between executive officers who serve the president directly and independent regulators who are supposed to be immune from daily political whims. The Court in 1935 said: no, FDR, you can't just fire an FTC commissioner because he's not singing from your hymnbook. That ruling became the backbone of modern agency independence—from the Fed to the SEC to the NLRB. Without it, the next president could dismiss any regulatory head who doesn't toe the party line. You want crypto rules to mean something? Food safety? Banking supervision? Say goodbye to all that if we pretend these agencies are just White House interns with better titles.But here's where it gets interesting: Agarwal is making the conservative case for restraint. Now working at Protect Democracy, he's arguing that letting presidents fire independent commissioners at will isn't a win for constitutional governance—it's a power grab that warps the original design. He's invoked Burkean conservatism—the idea that practical experience should trump theoretical purity—and warns that blind devotion to the “unitary executive theory” threatens institutional integrity more than it protects separation of powers.And Agarwal isn't alone. A collection of conservative legal scholars, former judges, and ex-White House lawyers—some with deep Federalist Society credentials—have filed briefs supporting his position. Their argument? That Humphrey's Executor is an “originalist” decision, faithful to the Founders' ambivalence about concentrated executive power, especially in domestic administration.Still, let's be honest: the Court is unlikely to be swayed by this internal dissent. The Roberts Court has already chipped away at agency independence in decisions like Seila Law (2020) and Loper Bright (2024), where it let Trump fire the CFPB director and overturned Chevron deference respectively. With a solid conservative majority, and multiple justices openly embracing a muscular vision of presidential control, the writing may already be on the wall.Which is precisely what makes Agarwal's stand so notable. This isn't some progressive legal activist parachuting in from the ACLU (though his wife did work there). This is someone who backed Kavanaugh publicly, donated to Nikki Haley, and spent years rising through the conservative legal pipeline—only to conclude that this version of executive power isn't conservative at all. It's reactionary.So what happens if Humphrey's goes down? Beyond the short-term question of whether Slaughter gets her job back, the bigger issue is how much power presidents will wield over what were supposed to be politically insulated regulatory bodies. Will a ruling in Trump's favor mean future presidents can purge the Fed board? Fire NLRB members mid-term? Flatten the independence of enforcement agencies? The Court may claim it's just restoring “constitutional structure,” but don't be surprised if that structure starts to look a lot like one-man rule.Agarwal, to his credit, is saying: not so fast. Sometimes conserving means preserving. And sometimes defending the Constitution means restraining the people who claim to speak for it the loudest.Ex-Alito, Kavanaugh Clerk Defends Limits on Trump's Firing PowerFight over Trump's power to fire FTC member heads to US Supreme Court | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily barred the Justice Department from using evidence seized from Daniel Richman, a former legal adviser to ex-FBI Director James Comey, in any future attempts to revive criminal charges against Comey. The move comes just weeks after the original case was dismissed due to the lead prosecutor's unlawful appointment.At issue is whether federal prosecutors violated Richman's Fourth Amendment rights by searching his personal computer without a warrant during earlier investigations into media leaks tied to Comey's 2020 congressional testimony. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with Richman—for now—saying he's likely to succeed on the merits and ordering the government to isolate and secure the data until at least December 12.The contested materials had been used to support now-dropped charges that Comey made false statements and obstructed Congress regarding FBI leaks about the Clinton and Trump investigations. But Richman, once a special FBI employee himself, argues the search was illegal and wants the files deleted or returned.The Justice Department, undeterred, is reportedly considering a second indictment of Comey. But between shaky prosecutorial appointments and constitutional challenges like this one, their case is rapidly sliding into legally questionable territory.US federal judge temporarily blocks evidence use in dismissed Comey case | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a controversial book removal case out of Llano County, Texas, effectively allowing local officials to keep 17 books off public library shelves—titles that deal with race, LGBTQ+ identity, puberty, and even flatulence.The justices let stand a divided 5th Circuit ruling that found no First Amendment violation in the county's decision to pull the books. That decision reversed a lower court order requiring the books be returned and rejected the plaintiffs' argument that library patrons have a constitutional “right to receive information.” The 5th Circuit held that libraries have wide discretion to curate collections, and that removing titles doesn't equate to banning them altogether—people can still buy them online, the court reasoned.The dispute began in 2021 when local officials responded to complaints by residents, ultimately purging books including Maurice Sendak's In the Night Kitchen (due to nude illustrations), as well as works on slavery and gender identity. Opponents of the removal sued, citing free speech violations. But the case now stands as a significant blow to that theory—at least in the 5th Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene leaves unresolved a key question: does the First Amendment protect not just the right to speak, but the right to access certain information in public institutions? For now, in parts of the South, the answer appears to be no.US Supreme Court turns away appeal of Texas library book ban | 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

You're listening to American Ground Radio with Stephen Parr and Louis R. Avallone. This is the full show for December 5, 2025. 0:30 We break down a moment that’s quietly shaking the political world — a Christmas message from President Trump that critics and supporters alike weren’t expecting. Standing before the National Christmas Tree, Trump delivered a line that hit with the weight of history: with the birth of Jesus, “human history turned from night to day.” No politics, no polling, no spin — just a call to love one another, serve one another, and remember that every child is made in the image of God. 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Thing You Need to Know. The US Supreme Court announced they will hear a challenge to President Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. A federal grand jury refused to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud this week. Netflix is buying Warner Brothers Discovery. 12:30 Get Performlyte from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:00 We dig into a stunning new revelation that the media would’ve once treated like a five-alarm fire — but now barely whispers about. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has reviewed just a slice of America’s voter rolls, and what she found is jaw-dropping: hundreds of thousands of dead voters still listed as active, thousands of non-citizens registered for federal elections, and more than a dozen states fighting tooth-and-nail to block transparency. We walk through the numbers, the lawsuits, and the obvious question no newsroom seems interested in asking: why would any state hide its voter data unless there was something to hide? From “most secure election in history” to the growing evidence that the system is riddled with cracks, we break down how fraud becomes a feature — not a glitch — and why trust in elections keeps eroding. 16:00 American Mamas Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson take on a question a lot of families have quietly wondered: why aren’t people doing obituaries anymore? From the rising cost of funerals to the decline of newspapers, from social media replacing the old morning paper to families choosing simplicity over tradition, the Mamas dig into what’s changing — and what might be getting lost. They talk about how obituaries once anchored local communities, how funerals serve the living more than the dead, and how skipping those rituals leaves a hole many people don’t realize is there until it’s gone. With personal stories, sharp humor, and a whole lot of heart, the Mamas break down how our culture handles loss, why those final tributes still matter, and why even in a digital age, remembering someone shouldn’t disappear. If you'd like to ask our American Mamas a question, go to our website, AmericanGroundRadio.com/mamas and click on the Ask the Mamas button. 23:00 We wade into a scandal brewing out of Minnesota — a jaw-dropping scheme where Somali fraud rings siphoned off millions in taxpayer funds meant to feed hungry children, and where, according to new reports, some of that stolen cash ended up flowing straight into Democrat campaign coffers. From Ilhan Omar’s backyard to Attorney General Keith Ellison’s campaign account, we break down how a billion-dollar fraud operation slipped past state officials, how fake nonprofits claimed to feed thousands of kids a day from buildings with no kitchens, and how money funneled through Minnesota wound up in Somalia — and potentially in the hands of Al Shabaab. 26:00 We Dig Deep a headline that sounds almost too wild to be true: did Donald Trump accidentally save the American AI industry from being overtaken by China? According to Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang — one of the most influential figures in tech — the answer is yes. Not because Trump set out to rescue AI, but because he unleashed U.S. energy production with “drill baby drill,” giving America the massive, continuous power supply that AI absolutely devours. From Goldman Sachs warning that AI energy use could explode 160% by decade’s end, to data centers now drawing power like mid-sized cities, we break down why reliable energy isn’t just an economic issue — it’s national security. And we walk through the near-miss that almost kneecapped the entire industry: a last-minute Biden-era “AI diffusion rule” that Trump killed before it could take effect. 32:00 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 32:30 We dig into a stunning move from New York’s mayor-elect Zoran Mamdani — a promise to end homeless encampment sweeps the moment he takes office. In a city once called America’s crown jewel, the new plan means police won’t be allowed to clear tents from sidewalks, parks, or even Times Square. Instead, the mayor says the answer is “connecting people with housing”… even as the real crisis is addiction, mental illness, and a system that can’t compel anyone to get help. From cities like Portland and San Francisco collapsing under the same policies — more crime, more overdoses, more fires, more chaos — we lay out the hard truth: ignoring encampments doesn’t solve homelessness, it supercharges it. 35:30 Plus, it's Fake News Friday! We're putting you to the test with our weekly game of headlines—are they real news, fake news, or really fake news? From CNN fumbling pipe-bomb speculation and climate-change studies collapsing under their own bogus math, to FIFA surprising everyone with a Peace Prize to Chuck Schumer taking a theatrical dive worthy of the World Cup, can you spot the fake news? Play along, keep score, and share your results with us on Facebook page: facebook.com/AmericanGroundRadio. 39:30 We tackle what can only be described as a constitutional earthquake — the Supreme Court’s decision to take up Donald Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders. 41:30 And we end today's show with the 21st amendment that was ratified 92 years ago and ended prohibition. Follow us: americangroundradio.com Facebook: facebook.com / AmericanGroundRadio Instagram: instagram.com/americangroundradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Exploring 500 years of protest and resistance in US history—and how its force is foundational and can empower us to navigate our chaotic world In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, revealing how protest has shaped our nation and remains a vital force for change today. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2026) gives voice to those who pushed back against the mistreatment of others, themselves, and in some instances planet Earth. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life, backgrounds, and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. Those stories include those of: Wahunsenacock, more commonly known to history as Chief Powhatan, who took on English invaders in pre-colonial America in 1607; legendary boxer Muhammad Ali who refused to be inducted into the US military during the Vietnam era and appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court; and David Buckel, LGBTQ+ rights lawyer and environmental activist who protested against fossil fuels by committing self-immolation in 2018. Regardless of whether these protests accomplished their end goals, Browne-Marshall reminds us that dissent is always meaningful and impactful. In fact, reading this book is an act of protest. Find Professor Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. And find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack where she and Gloria continued their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The United States may be on the verge of losing the independent agencies that oversee consumer protection, worker protection, and environmental protection — replaced with nothing but lackeys of whichever politician has the most power. A right-wing group that favors unitary executive power — at least when a conservative is president — will argue their case Monday before the US Supreme Court, with a Chief Justice in John Roberts who has been pushing for this for 40 years, dating back to his days working in the Reagan administration. Mornings with Pat Kreitlow is powered by UpNorthNews, and it airs on several stations across the Civic Media radio network, Monday through Friday from 6-9 am. Subscribe to the podcast to be sure not to miss out on a single episode! Get more from Pat and UpNorthNews on their website and follow them on X, Facebook, TikTok and Instagram. To learn more about the show and all of the programming across the Civic Media network, head over to civicmedia.us/shows to see the entire broadcast lineup. Follow the show on Facebook, X, and YouTube. Guest: Dr. Kristin Lyerly

Exploring 500 years of protest and resistance in US history—and how its force is foundational and can empower us to navigate our chaotic world In this timely new book in Beacon's successful ReVisioning History series, professor Gloria Browne-Marshall delves into the history of protest movements and rebellion in the United States. Beginning with Indigenous peoples' resistance to European colonization and continuing through to today's climate change demonstrations, Browne-Marshall sheds light on known and forgotten movements and their unsung leaders, revealing how protest has shaped our nation and remains a vital force for change today. Drawing upon legal documents, archival material, memoir, government documents and secondary sources, A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, 2026) gives voice to those who pushed back against the mistreatment of others, themselves, and in some instances planet Earth. Browne-Marshall highlights stories of individuals from all walks of life, backgrounds, and time periods who helped bring strong attention to their causes. Those stories include those of: Wahunsenacock, more commonly known to history as Chief Powhatan, who took on English invaders in pre-colonial America in 1607; legendary boxer Muhammad Ali who refused to be inducted into the US military during the Vietnam era and appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court; and David Buckel, LGBTQ+ rights lawyer and environmental activist who protested against fossil fuels by committing self-immolation in 2018. Regardless of whether these protests accomplished their end goals, Browne-Marshall reminds us that dissent is always meaningful and impactful. In fact, reading this book is an act of protest. Find Professor Gloria J. Browne-Marshall at her website and on Instagram. And find host Sullivan Summer at her website, on Instagram, and on Substack where she and Gloria continued their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

President Trump is setting the stage for the one of the biggest sporting events on the globe — the 2026 World Cup. Somehow, he has earned himself a peace prize in the process. Plus, did the US Supreme Court just create a rush to redraw congressional maps mid decade nationwide?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Minnesota Somali community's scheme centered around the nonprofit Feeding Our Future, siphoned off approximately $250 million in federal taxpayer funds intended to feed children during the COVID-19 pandemic, but were instead used for luxury purchases like mansions and high-end shopping sprees. We were originally told the total fraud could be a billion dollars - new reports out today say it could be now well over 8 billion! In a stunning development, the US Supreme Court agreed to decide the Constitutionality of President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. In September President Trump asked the Supreme Court to end birthright citizenship. Democrat attorneys general sued the Trump Administration to block the birthright citizenship executive order. And the J6 pipe bomber has finally be caught, but something isn't adding up!Guest: Stephen Gardner - Host, The Stephen Gardner ShowSponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Lincoln Wilson of Alliance Defending Freedom Alliance Defending FreedomThe post A US Supreme Court Case over a Subpoena Dispute of Five Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers – Lincoln Wilson, 12/5/25 (3392) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

This episode is presented by Create A Video – The US Supreme Court ruled that the new redistricting map drawn by Texas Republicans can remain in place for the upcoming midterms. Subscribe to the podcast at: https://ThePetePod.com/ All the links to Pete's Prep are free: https://patreon.com/petekalinershow Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code! Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.comGet exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The US Supreme Court has a process for handling emergency cases that need quick and temporary rulings while the larger case works its way up from lower courts. But right-wing justices have taken the “shadow docket” in a sharply political direction, including a Thursday ruling that allows Texas Republicans to use a newly-rigged map for its 2026 congressional elections. That's one of the many stories we'll cover with our Week In Review panel. We also continue our 12 Days of Kindness by talking with Amery Hospital & Clinic Foundation. Mornings with Pat Kreitlow is powered by UpNorthNews, and it airs on several stations across the Civic Media radio network, Monday through Friday from 6-9 am. Subscribe to the podcast to be sure not to miss out on a single episode! Get more from Pat and UpNorthNews on their website and follow them on X, Facebook, TikTok and Instagram. To learn more about the show and all of the programming across the Civic Media network, head over to civicmedia.us/shows to see the entire broadcast lineup. Follow the show on Facebook, X, and YouTube. Guests: Jim Santelle, Mark Jacob, Jennifer Schulze, Lisa Ruehlow

Host: Dale Johnson Guest: Ted Borek Description: This episode features an interview with Willow Valley resident Ted Borek, a man with a long and distinguished legal background. Borek details his early career, which began with 24 years of military service, including roles as an Army prosecutor, where he gained initial experience trying a high volume of cases. After his military retirement, Borek transitioned to civilian life, serving as an Assistant US Attorney in Arizona, where his work encompassed both criminal prosecution and civil litigation defending federal agencies. He subsequently became a trial judge in the Pima County Superior Court, rotating through civil, criminal, and juvenile benches for nearly 14 years. Throughout the discussion, Borek stresses that preparation and respect are central to the rule of law, recounting significant cases, including one traffic stop decision that was ultimately upheld by the US Supreme Court.

Oklahoma wants the US Supreme Court to stay away from a tribal tax case.Local nonprofits are getting grants from the founder of Amazon.The crisis of Missing and Murdered Indigenous People is more than a century old.You can find the KOSU Daily wherever you get your podcasts, you can also subscribe, rate us and leave a comment.You can keep up to date on all the latest news throughout the day at KOSU.org and make sure to follow us on Facebook, Tik Tok and Instagram at KOSU Radio.This is The KOSU Daily, Oklahoma news, every weekday.

Intellectual Property: Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that mere knowledge of another's direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)? - Argued: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 11:30:39 EDT

Civil Procedure: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court? - Argued: Tue, 02 Dec 2025 16:31:7 EDT

Immigration: Must a federal court of appeals must defer to the BIA's judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute 'persecution'? - Argued: Mon, 01 Dec 2025 11:32:55 EDT

Randy Schaffer is a criminal defense attorney. He received his Bachelor's Degree from the University of Texas in 1970 and earned his JD from the University of Texas School of Law in 1973. Licensed to practice before the US Supreme Court, multiple US Courts of Appeals, multiple US District Courts, and the Texas State Courts, he is a member of the American Board of Criminal Lawyers, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, Harris County Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, American Bar Association, and Houston Bar Association. He has written numerous articles and papers that have been published and spoken at seminars for various organizations in addition to being featured in many newspapers and magazines. Randy and his wife Mollie have two sons and live in Houston, Texas.

In breaking news, a unanimous Third Circuit Court of Appeals just affirmed the disqualification of Trump's former criminal defense lawyer and political hack, Alina Habba, to serve as the US Attorney for NJ. Michael Popok explains how this is similar but different than last week's disqualification of Trump's other novice prosecutor Lindsey Halligan, and how Justice Sam Alito will likely be deciding soon whether Habba remains in her office while the appeal makes its way to the US Supreme Court. For 40% OFF your order, head to https://Udacity.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast⁠ Legal AF: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af⁠ MissTrial: ⁠https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial⁠ The PoliticsGirl Podcast: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast⁠ Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan⁠ Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen⁠ The Weekend Show: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show⁠ Burn the Boats: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats⁠ Majority 54: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54⁠ Political Beatdown: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown⁠ On Democracy with FP Wellman: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman⁠ Uncovered: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Monday, December 1st, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes written by yours truly and heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  Filling in for Adam McManus I'm Ean Leppin. (Contact@eanvoiceit.com) Why are Christians in Nigeria Facing Such Violent Attacks? President Donald Trump recently brought the topic of Christian persecution up noting that Nigeria was quote a ‘Country of Particular Concern' for violating religious freedom.  This has led to questions over why so many Nigerian Christian communities have faced violent attacks and why the President of the United States would require attention to this issue. Persecution.org examined this question and has found that according to most western media outlets Climate Change is often used to portray the violent attacks over natural resources instead of religious motivation. For example, in 2023 a massacre occurred on Christmas Eve.  Over 140 people were killed in Nigeria Plateau state.  Vatican News ran an article that said, quote ‘the long-running conflict between nomadic herders and farmers'. Right after a massacre in June of this year in which 200 Christians in Nigeria's Benue state were killed.  The BBC ran an article on violence in central Nigeria that said quote ‘It is safe to assume that there are lots of victims on both sides, as any attack usually leads to revenge and then a cycle of violence' Why is that safe to assume? Justice G Danjuma, an evangelist for the Remnant Christian Network in Nigeria's Taraba State, does agree that disputes over resources play a role, just not nearly as big a role as many Media outlets would have you believe. Danjuma says quote ‘Overwhelmingly the attacks are driven by religious animosity.'  He also encouraged people to quote ‘Reject the climate change narrative pushed by Western Media' He and added that it is quote, ‘It is deeply offensive and misleading.  Why would climate change cause people to burn churches, kill pastors and massacre worshippers during Christmas or Palm Sunday services.' Nigeria is currently number 7 on the Open Doors World Watch List for countries where Christians face the most extreme persecution. Pray for the believers in Nigeria with the words of Psalm 35:1-3: "Contend, O Lord, with those who contend with me; Fight against those who fight against me!  Take hold of shield and buckler and rise for my help!  Draw spear and javelin against my pursuers!  Say to my soul, I am your salvation!" ADF Releases Report of Christian Victories in the Supreme Court The Alliance Defending Freedom or ADF released a report listing the victories of 2025 so far this year!  Among the victories in the US Supreme Court they reported were; A decision in June that pro-life states like South Carolina can now direct Medicaid funds away from abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood. And a landmark victory for children's health and science based medicine.  The Court upheld Tennessee law protecting minors from harmful and life-altering gender transition drugs and surgeries. A link to a full list of cases won and still awaiting decisions is in a link in our transcript. Conscience Protections for Medical Residents Act Introduced Lifenews.com reports that US Senator John Cornyn from Texas along with Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma and a group of their Senate GOP colleagues, introduced the Conscience Protections for Medical Residents Act, which would ensure medical students and residents are never pressured or coerced into abortion training that violates their moral or religious beliefs and established clear federal protections so residents are not forced to choose between their conscience and their careers. Senator Cornyn said quote, ‘The first rule of medicine is to do no harm, yet for many aspiring doctors, coerced abortion training not only contradicts that oath but also violates their moral and religious beliefs. By allowing medical residents to opt-in rather than opt-out of abortion training, this legislation would protect healthcare professionals convictions and give them the freedom to practice medicine without fear of retaliation.' Findings from Abortion Mill Undercover Investigation Released RightNow a not-for-profit organization committed to nominating and electing pro-life candidates along with educating and engaging pro-life Canadians on the political process, recently released the findings of an undercover investigation in which they went into abortion clinics across Canada to find out if it was possible to get a late-term abortion based solely on personal choice.  Alissa Golob, Co-Founder and Executive Director of RightNow says quote, ‘Canadians are often told that late-term abortions never happen in Canada and if they do, they are for extreme medical reasons.  Yet, I was told numerous times that attaining a late-term abortion in Canada is relatively easy, legal and that I did not need a reason, medical or otherwise, regarding myself or my pregnancy.' Other things exposed in this investigation were things like an abortion clinic counsellor defining late-term abortion in Canada as stillbirth, which calls into question the validity of current statistics around late-term abortions in Canada. And that taxpayer money in Canada has been used to fund travel and accommodations of Canadian women who are being sent to for-profit abortion clinics.   You can watch the YouTube video report in a link on our transcript at TheWorldview.com Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday December 1st, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. Filling in for Adam McManus I'm Ean Leppin (Contact@eanvoiceit.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

This Day in Legal History: Rosa Parks ArrestedOn December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama, for refusing to surrender her seat to a white passenger on a segregated city bus. Parks, a 42-year-old Black seamstress and longtime activist, had been sitting in the “colored” section when the driver demanded she move. Her quiet but firm defiance violated local segregation laws, which mandated racial separation in public transportation and required Black passengers to yield seats to white passengers when buses became crowded. Parks' arrest became a catalyst for the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a coordinated campaign to end racial segregation on public transit.The boycott began four days later, organized by the Montgomery Improvement Association, with a then-unknown Martin Luther King Jr. as its president. It lasted over a year, during which thousands of Black residents refused to use the city's buses, severely impacting the transit system's finances. The protest was not only a powerful act of collective resistance but also a carefully structured legal challenge. Civil rights attorneys, including Fred Gray, filed a federal lawsuit—Browder v. Gayle—on behalf of several Black women who had experienced bus segregation.In November 1956, the federal district court ruled that Montgomery's segregated bus system was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision, and on December 20, 1956, the boycott officially ended when the Court's ruling was implemented. Rosa Parks' arrest and the movement it sparked marked a turning point in the American civil rights struggle. Her individual act of resistance ignited a mass movement and set the stage for future legal and social change.The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a key copyright case today involving Cox Communications and several major record labels, including Sony, Warner, and Universal. The case centers on whether Cox can be held financially liable for allegedly enabling its users to illegally download music. A jury originally awarded the labels $1 billion in 2019 after finding Cox secondarily liable for over 10,000 copyright infringements, but the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed part of that decision, leading to a retrial on damages.Cox argues it shouldn't be held accountable for users' actions, warning that a ruling against it could force ISPs to terminate internet access for entire households or public institutions over alleged piracy. The company claims it reasonably handled piracy reports and criticized the notion that it failed to act. In contrast, the labels accuse Cox of ignoring thousands of infringement notices and protecting profitable repeat offenders while readily cutting off nonpaying customers.Big tech companies like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft have sided with Cox, suggesting that a ruling for the labels could harm the internet economy. Meanwhile, the Trump administration—represented by Solicitor General John Sauer—is supporting Cox's view that merely knowing about piracy isn't enough to establish liability. Industry groups in music, film, and publishing back the labels, arguing that Cox's stance threatens collaborative anti-piracy efforts. The Supreme Court's decision could reshape how ISPs respond to copyright violations.US Supreme Court to hear copyright dispute between Cox and record labels | ReutersFollowing a deadly shooting in Washington, D.C., involving an Afghan immigrant accused of killing a National Guard member, President Donald Trump has intensified efforts to restrict legal immigration. Within 48 hours of the attack, Trump paused Afghan immigration applications, launched a review of asylum approvals from the Biden era, and hinted at expanded vetting under his existing travel ban targeting 19 countries. These moves revive and build upon restrictive immigration policies from Trump's first term, now framed as necessary for national security.Critics argue the administration is exploiting a tragic but isolated incident to justify sweeping immigration rollbacks. Afghan advocacy groups stressed that Afghan immigrants undergo extensive vetting and should not be broadly blamed. While Trump and top officials suggested large-scale reforms—like ending federal benefits for non-citizens and denaturalizing those deemed a threat—federal agencies have so far announced more limited actions, such as case reviews for applicants from travel-ban countries.Legal experts warn that some of the proposed policies, including denying welfare to lawful residents and mass denaturalization, would likely be ruled unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the administration is signaling an aggressive stance, despite polls showing declining public approval of Trump's immigration policies. Meanwhile, Democrats accuse Trump of targeting law-abiding immigrants and using fear-based tactics for political gain.Trump sharpens focus on legal immigration after National Guard shooting | ReutersA federal judge's decision to ban generative AI from his chambers after an intern used it in a flawed court opinion has sparked debate over how technology should be used in the legal system. Judge Julien Neals of New Jersey attributed the error in a June ruling to a law student who used AI in violation of their school's policy, prompting Neals to prohibit AI use entirely among his staff. His response to Senator Chuck Grassley drew concern from legal academics and judges who argue that banning AI outright may be shortsighted.Proponents of AI in the judiciary say the technology, if used responsibly, could reduce case backlogs and improve efficiency amid staffing shortages. Judge Xavier Rodriguez of Texas ran an experiment comparing traditional opinion writing with AI-assisted drafting, showing significant time savings without sacrificing quality. He and others advocate for structured AI use, emphasizing vetting, fact-checking, and clear protocols to preserve judicial integrity.Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard and law professors like David Kemp suggest that instead of bans, institutions should focus on teaching students ethical and effective AI use. With many law students already accustomed to using generative AI, schools are scrambling to develop policies and training. Some institutions, like the University of Chicago Law School, have embraced AI integration, while others lag behind. The incident in Judge Neals' courtroom has become a wake-up call for courts and law schools to align on responsible AI use in legal education and practice.Judges' AI Blunders Spark Debate on Technology Use in CourtsLuigi Mangione, accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in a high-profile shooting outside a Manhattan hotel, appeared in court today for key pretrial hearings. The 27-year-old, arrested in December 2024, has pleaded not guilty to murder and multiple related charges in both state and federal cases. The hearings will determine whether crucial evidence—including a 3-D printed gun, silencer, and journal writings found in Mangione's backpack—can be used at trial. His defense argues that the items were obtained through an illegal search during his arrest in Pennsylvania and that statements he made to police should also be excluded.Prosecutors dispute those claims and are seeking to admit the materials, which they argue implicate Mangione in the killing. Mangione, who has gained a controversial following among critics of the U.S. healthcare system, faces life in prison if convicted of second-degree murder. In a separate federal case, prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty. Earlier in September, two terrorism charges were dismissed after a judge ruled there was insufficient evidence Mangione intended to intimidate healthcare workers or influence government policy.The hearings, overseen by Judge Gregory Carro, are expected to last through the week and include testimony from arresting officers. No trial date has yet been set, and Mangione remains in federal custody in Brooklyn.Luigi Mangione due in court for pretrial hearings over US healthcare executive's killing | 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

In August 2022, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall made a guest appearance on a local conservative talk radio show. It was two months after the US Supreme Court had overturned Roe v. Wade, and abortion was now illegal in Alabama. And Marshall addressed rumors that he planned to prosecute anyone helping people get abortions out of state.  “If someone was promoting themselves out as a funder of abortion out of state,” Marshall explained to the host, “then that is potentially criminally actionable for us.” This particular threat launched an epic legal battle with implications for some of the most basic American rights: the right to travel, the right to free speech, the right to give and receive help. This week on Reveal, reporter Nina Martin spends time with abortion rights groups in Alabama, following how they've adapted to one of the nation's strictest anti-abortion policies—and evolved their definition of help.This is an update of an episode that originally aired in May 2025. Support Reveal's journalism at Revealnews.org/donatenow Subscribe to our weekly newsletter to get the scoop on new episodes at Revealnews.org/weekly Instagram Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

In this episode, Jenn talks with Aimee Huber of First Choice Women's Resource Centers and ADF attorney Gabriella McIntyre about how the New Jersey Attorney General has used his power to target a pro-life ministry that has never had a single complaint. First Choice has spent decades walking with women in their most vulnerable moments by offering real support, real resources, and real hope at no cost. Now the state is demanding years of private records, including donor names and addresses, while partnering with Planned Parenthood to undermine the work of those who actually help moms choose life.We look at what this kind of government intimidation means for women, for children, and for every nonprofit that depends on donor privacy and freedom from retaliation. And we talk about why ADF is taking this case to the Supreme Court to protect the rights of groups who refuse to bend to political pressure.Learn more at adflegal.org and join us in praying for Aimee and her team as they stand firm for the most vulnerable.https://adflegal.org/campaign/first-choice-womens-resource-centers-v-platkin/?sourcecode=11037542_r200

       Indian Judge Rabhabinod Pal wrote a massive dissent, arguing the court lacked legitimacy due to the dominance of imperial powers. Pal, who focused heavily on racism and colonialism, questioned the evidence of Japanese atrocities at Nanjing. During the 1948 executions, army defendants chanted "Banzai" (Long live the Emperor). The US Supreme Court upheld the military commissions by narrowly refusing jurisdiction.

The American occupation began amidst vast ruins; Japanese officials burned evidence regarding atrocities like Nanjing. Class A crimes focused on aggressive war, targeting senior leaders like Tojo Hideki. Crucial prosecution evidence was found in the detailed diary of the emperor's advisor, Kido Koichi. The US Supreme Court ruled against jurisdiction over earlier military commissions. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East was subsequently established.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on the Trump Administration's imposition of tariffs on imports of just about every product from just about every country. Statutory interpretation, major questions doctrine, nondelegation. This case had it all. We dive deep into the debate so you don't have to.Check out our new True Crime Substack the True Crime Times Get Prosecutors Podcast Merch Join the Gallery on Facebook Follow us on TwitterFollow us on Instagram Check out our website for case resources: Hang out with us on TikTokSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.