Podcasts about voting rights act

Max and 99 are back for another round of Omnibus. They hit headlines on John Roberts’ 40-year project to kill the Voting Rights Act and Spirit Airlines selling decades of flight attendant data to Google to train AI. Then they tackle listener emails on wage labor as a central issue, whether UNFTR is a GRU op (lol), and tech bros engineering technocratic feudalism. Enjoy! Chapters Intro: 00:00:40 Headlines: 00:07:38 Emails: 00:31:04 Memberships: 00:59:34 Outro: 01:00:33 Resources Frazier Chorus: Dream Kitchen Wired: Spirit Airlines Wants to Sell Its Data to Google. Former Flight Attendants Are Freaked Out The Progressive: The Long Con of John Roberts FiftyPlusOne: We tracked every candidate in the 2026 primaries. Here’s who voters are nominating. UNFTR Resources Video: On The Record 08-25-26 (Scott Bessent is a Loser Who Wants to be President.) -- If you like #UNFTR, please leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify: unftr.com/rate and follow us on Facebook, Bluesky, and Instagram at @UNFTRpod. Visit us online at unftr.com. Become a member at unftr.com/memberships. Buy yourself some Unf*cking Coffee at shop.unftr.com. Visit our bookshop.org page at bookshop.org/shop/UNFTRpod to find the full UNFTR book list, and find book recommendations from our Unf*ckers at bookshop.org/lists/unf-cker-book-recommendations. Access the UNFTR Musicless feed by following the instructions at unftr.com/accessibilitySupport the show: https://www.unftr.com/membershipsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The conversation turns to a hard truth: nobody is doing anything to stop him. Hawk points to Donald Trump's second term, the harm being done to others on purpose, and the fear that Trump and Republicans will interfere with the midterm elections. He calls out the Supreme Court for gutting the Voting Rights Act in the South and names it the most racist court of his lifetime, arguing that American institutions have failed and worse is coming. Woven through it all is a national sense of grief. This week the country lost Dolly Parton, Tim Curry, and Peter Cullen, the voice of Optimus Prime, bright presences who shaped decades of culture. Hawk closes on gratitude, his home, his dogs, and getting to play music with friends at 58, even with a busted knee. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Thursday, August 27, 2026 Today, a federal judge in Boston has lifted the last remaining block on a USPS plan to regulate mail-in ballots, but asks for briefing to re-block it and Democrats have renewed their bid to block it in DC; the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Black voters' redistricting win in Georgia; a federal judge has declined a Justice Department request to dismiss the contempt charges against Steve Bannon; a judge rules that ICE agent Christian Castro can be released from a Texas jail because Governor Abbot hasn't signed the extradition request; a third Dan Sullivan endorses Dan Sullivan over Dan Sullivan in the Alaska senate race; Enes Kanter Freedom has been banned by the Chicago Sky after his altercation with Natasha Cloud; Democrats widen their probe of the Kushner's Albanian resort deal; actor Tim Curry has died at the age of 80; hundreds are missing after a flash flood sweeps through villages near the Nepal-Tibet border; a judge strikes down the Texas drag ban telling people offended by them “just don't go”; plus Allison and Dana deliver your Good News. Thank You, MINT MOBILE Make the switch! MINTMOBILE.com/DAILYBEANS Thank You, Helix Make laundry day the best day of the week! Get 20% off your entire order @LaundrySauce with code DAILYBEANS at https://laundrysauce.com/DAILYBEANS #laundrysaucepod #ad The Trump Epstein Memorial Bookmobile The Daily Beans is proud to partner with Miles Taylor and our friends at DEFIANCE.org For a limited time, members of the Daily Beans community can receive a FREE 3-month full membership to DEFIANCE.org and gain access to one of the fastest-growing pro-democracy movements in America. Join here: https://www.defiance.org/beans Diamond Dames - Subscribe here: Diamond Dames - A Ted Lasso PodcastDiamond Dames - YouTube playlist The Latest Breakdown→ FBI Confesses to Hiding Epstein Info in My Lawsuit | The Breakdown StoriesTim Curry, iconic character actor and star of 'Rocky Horror Picture Show,' dies at 80 | PBS News Hundreds missing after flood hits Nepal-Tibet border, 157 bodies recovered | NBC News https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mtxisvkl7w2c Judge rules ICE agent arrested for shooting in Minneapolis can be released from Texas jail | Minnesota Star Tribune Judge rejects Steve Bannon's motion to throw out contempt of Congress charges | CNN Politics Judge lifts second block on Trump's mail voting order, clears way for legal fight on constitutionality | Democracy Docket Citing Callais, appeals court overturns Black voters' redistricting win in Georgia | Democracy Docket Dan Sullivan endorses Dan Sullivan to beat Dan Sullivan in perplexing Alaska Senate race | NBC News Democrats widen Kushner probe to include Albanian resort deal | MS NOW Enes Kanter Freedom banned by Chicago Sky after altercation with Natasha Cloud | The Athletic Judge strikes down Texas ban on drag shows, tells people offended by them ‘just don't go' | NBC News Good Trouble Suggests Overseas Vote Foundation Overseas Voter Services For help in registering as an overseas citizen voter. The Federal Voting Assistance Program is available at FVAP.gov →Friday August 28 in DC March On Washington 2026 -marchonwashington2026.com →March on Washington 2026 Mobilize link: March on Washington: Defend the Vote · People Power United →Voter Registration Deadlines - Vote.org Voter Registration Volunteer Opportunities · Mobilize →Helpline Orientation- Spanish Speakers Needed! · VoteRiders →Help save Texas from Ken Paxton! →NO HATE in WA State →Stand With Minnesota →iceout.org Good NewsIn honor of Dolly Parton, Tennessee could celebrate '9 to 5 Day' on 9/25 | WPLN News Oct 9 -Southwest Funny Fest:Dana Goldberg's Southwest FunnyFest - City of Albuquerque -Email Dana@DanaGoldberg.com for sponsorship informationTickets for Dana Goldberg: Outrageous - Sep 23 - Den Theater - Chicago →Share your Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans →Beans Talk audio -beans-talk.simplecast.com Subscribe to the MSW on YouTube - MSW Media - YouTube Our Donation Links The Trevor Project - trevorproject.org/beans Blue Wave California - ActBlue.com/donate/msw-bwc Donate to Public Citizen - https://citizen.org/beans/ Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans Fundraiser Pathways to Citizenship - boomerang - pathways Dana and The Daily Beans support of Human Rights Campaign ONE CAUSE HRC The Daily Beans supports It Gets BetterNational Security Counselors - Donate, WhistleblowerAid.org/beans Dr. Allison Gill - The Breakdown | Allison Gill, Mueller, She Wrote @muellershewrote.com - Bluesky, MSW & The Daily Beans Podcast @muellershewrote - Instagram, MSW Media - YouTube →Federal workers email AG - fedoath@pm.me Dana Goldberg - Dana is on Patreon! At Dana's Dugout, @dgcomedy - Bluesky, @dgcomedy - IG, Dana Goldberg - Facebook, DanaGoldberg.com More from MSW Media - Shows, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | Allison Gill Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, Dr. Goodwin breaks down what the latest Supreme Court ruling on voting rights actually says and what it doesn't, and of course, it means everyone's hair is on fire.  Given that this Supreme Court has tried in every way possible to make it more difficult for people to vote, dismantling the Voting Rights Act, an act that had been supported over the years by both Republicans and also Democrats, what hot mess is next?    The 1965 Voting Rights Act was one that had been embraced over the years strongly by Republicans and Democrats.  As Dr. Goodwin discusses, it has been this Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, which has unraveled it, pulled the thread where it would knowingly make all of the fabric fall apart into what has been a disintegration of one of the most essential pieses of legislation in American history, which protected all Americans.   As she reminds, let us not forget that the very first suffragists in the United States were white men who had been dispossessed from the right to vote because they were not wealthy.  Sit back and take a listen.Support the show

With the midterm elections on the horizon, will voters overcome a fraught electoral battlefield to show up at the polls? Threats to the electoral system such as polarization, misinformation, campaign finance, redistricting, and limits to the Voting Rights Act are reducing voters' trust. How can the system be rebuilt in a way that inspires confidence across the political spectrum? Heather Gerken leads a conversation with Rick Hasen, Janai Nelson, Sarah Isgur, and Ben Ginsburg. Gerken is president of the Ford Foundation; Hasen is a professor of law at UCLA; Nelson is President and Director-Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund; Isgur is editor of SCOTUSblog; and Ginsburg is a political law advocate.

Hawk walks through Adam Serwer's Atlantic piece, The See No Evil Supreme Court, and the framework Serwer names the neo Korematsu doctrine: if any non racial explanation for a policy can be constructed, however hypothetical, the racial animus behind it stops mattering legally. Serwer traces it from Trump v. Hawaii through Louisiana v. Callais and the TPS ruling, and contrasts it with Masterpiece Cakeshop, where hostile statements by officials counted for everything. Sotomayor's September dissent is the payoff, and Hawk reads from it. There is also footage circulating of agents in the back of a truck identifying people in traffic by appearance, using language that makes the criteria explicit. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

August 18, 2026On August 18, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, It gave the right to vote to women, The push for rights for women had taken root during the Civil War, But the Fourteenth Amendment tied the right to vote to male citizens only, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony formed the National Women Suffrage Association, followed by Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe's founding of the American Women Suffrage Association, Suffragists decided to test their right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment in the 1872 election, When Suffragist Virginia Minor was kept from voting, she sued, and the case went to the Supreme Court which decided that women were citizens, but that citizenship did not necessarily convey the right to vote, For the next two decades, women's suffrage drew its power from women's organizations across the country, While laws changed to allow women to vote in some states, federal action was needed, Woodrow Wilson, under pressure in the midterm election of 1918 backed a constitutional amendment, The amendment  became the law of the land after it was ratified by Tennessee, and 26 million American women had the right to vote in the 1920 presidential election, But most Black women and women of color would remain unable to vote for another 45 years, Black women activists were among the leading voices behind the 1965 Voting Rights Act that made Black voting a reality, In 2026, Christian nationalists want to repeal women's right to vote.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Explaining History Podcast, we are joined by David F. Walbert, a veteran voting rights attorney whose new book, Stealing Elections American Style, traces the long, sordid history of contested and corrupted elections from the mid‑19th century to the present day.David's career spans decades of litigation on voting rights cases, beginning in the early 1970s when he moved to Georgia and discovered that despite the Voting Rights Act, African American representation in elected office was staggeringly low. The problem was not voter registration – Black and white registration was near parity – but structural devices that allowed white majorities to control every election outcome.We explore the origins of the "Southern strategy" – the explicit deal struck by Richard Nixon in 1968 with the white South: electoral votes in exchange for Supreme Court justices hostile to civil rights. That strategy, David argues, is the genesis of the ongoing assault on voting rights, culminating in the 1980 Supreme Court decision that nearly shut down vote dilution cases – and the subsequent effort to amend the Voting Rights Act in 1982.The conversation moves to the stolen election of 1876 – perhaps the most flagrant in American history – where Rutherford B. Hayes was awarded the presidency despite losing the popular vote, through the systematic throwing out of Democratic precincts in Louisiana. The parallels to the present are striking.David also discusses the evolution of voter suppression tactics, the spread of white racist ideology from the South to the North, and the alarming infiltration of election denialists into state and local election apparatuses. He warns that the next close election – particularly in the House and Senate – could be decided not by voters, but by partisan politicians in Congress, a prospect that threatens the very foundation of American democracy.Topics covered:David's career litigating voting rights casesThe Voting Rights Act and its amendmentsThe Southern strategy and its consequencesThe stolen election of 1876 (Tilden vs. Hayes)George W. Bush vs. Al Gore in 2000Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 electionThe infiltration of election denialists into state and local officesThe constitutional power of Congress to judge its own electionsThe threat to the 2028 presidential electionDavid F. Walbert's Stealing Elections American Style is published by Bloomsbury and is available from September 3 in the US and October in the UK. Please consider buying from an independent bookshop or directly from the publisher.If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us – we are migrating from Patreon to Substack. Details in the show notes.Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive ContentBecome a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory▸ Join the Community & Continue the ConversationFacebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcastSubstack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com▸ Read Articles & Go DeeperWebsite: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Senate sits at 53 to 47. Democrats need four seats for a majority. Realistic targets include Alaska, Texas, Ohio, Maine, Iowa, North Carolina, and possibly Kansas and Nebraska, while holding open seats in Michigan and Minnesota. The House is tighter than it looks: Southern redistricting after this year's Voting Rights Act ruling is projected to cost Democrats a dozen seats, so the real number is closer to twenty. That math is the whole argument. Narrow margins give an administration something to work with. Overwhelming ones do not. Hawk's concern is the window between election day and swearing in, and the fact that the officials who refused Trump in 2020 are gone. Pat Cipollone, Bill Barr, and career DOJ lawyers said no then. The outside lawyers who said yes were disbarred or indicted. Their equivalents now hold the offices. Democracy Docket is at democracydocket.com. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, we should encourage independent engagement with ideas like those of Justice Clarence Thomas rather than selling out to the left, communists, socialists, Islamists, the Woke Reich, isolationists, or others who have fallen into traps pushing greater interventionism or abandoning the dollar as the reserve currency. The prevailing hate directed at America, its founders, symbols, belief systems, Judaism, Christianity, and Israel should be condemned. We must maintain constitutional conservatism!  Rep Hakeem Jeffries attacks Justices Sam Alito and Thomas over alleged ethics issues while ignoring Justice Sonia Sotomayor's corruption. Sotomayor is the most ethically corrupt justice on the Court. She used taxpayer-funded court resources and staff to promote and sell her book by requiring organizations to purchase copies for her speeches, thereby earning substantial profits.  Jeffries shifted from ethics complaints to attacking a Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because Democrats disagree with the ruling and seek to control the Court.  Also, there is no real substantive distinction between the DSA and the Democrat Party. The Democrats, as the more experienced institutional establishment, simply avoid overtly using terms like communism, Marxism, or even socialism while pursuing the same radical American Marxist agenda, differing mainly in approach, style, verbiage, and the speed of implementation rather than the underlying goals. Both seek to destroy the courts, citizenship, the Electoral College, and the voting system; promote open borders with no ICE deportations; centralize power in their own hands; and attack capitalism despite occasional claims otherwise. Later, Rep Randy Fine calls to discuss intense antisemitic attacks in his Republican primary.  Even Hakeem Jeffries and other Democrats have condemned this. He also credits Florida's long stretch of conservative governance for keeping radical elements out and making the state a model of freedom and opportunity.  Afterward, the Iranian regime will not fall through economic pressure alone and must be destroyed. The IRGC—the true backbone of the regime—is replacing regular army generals and top brass with its own loyalists while preparing extensive escalation plans. Iran's leadership is growing more confident, remaining skeptical of Trump's motives, shifting into a survival economy, and viewing any talks as a mere pause before further conflict. Finally, Alyssa Rosenheck calls in to discuss her new book - White. Blonde. Jew.: A Call to End Extremism, Speak Up, and Reclaim Center. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: The Nineteenth Amendment Is RatifiedOn August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the thirty-sixth state to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment—the final state needed to reach the three-quarters threshold—and with that vote, the constitutional guarantee that the right to vote could not be denied on account of sex became part of American law. It enfranchised, at a stroke, roughly half the adult population of the United States.The story of how it happened is almost unbelievably close. Tennessee's state senate had ratified comfortably, but the house was deadlocked, tied 48 to 48. The decisive vote belonged to a 24-year-old representative named Harry Burn, who had a red rose on his lapel signaling opposition to the amendment—and a letter in his pocket from his mother, Phoebe, urging him to “be a good boy” and vote for suffrage. He did. His single vote broke the tie, Tennessee ratified, and the amendment was certified into the Constitution days later. A generational struggle turned, in the end, on a young man listening to his mother.The significance of August 18, 1920 is best understood as the payoff to a story we told on this show back in July. When we covered the Seneca Falls Convention and its 1848 Declaration of Sentiments—the founding document of the American women's rights movement, which dared to demand the vote—I noted that it would take seventy-two years to win the ballot. This is that day. The distance from Seneca Falls to Nashville is the distance from a bold, ridiculed demand to a line in the Constitution. And like the Fifteenth Amendment before it, the Nineteenth didn't instantly deliver on its promise—many women of color, in particular, remained effectively disenfranchised for decades until the Voting Rights Act. But it permanently changed who “the people” are in a democracy. It's a reminder, on a day full of stories about the law's unfinished business, that some of the most fundamental rights we now take for granted were won slowly, against fierce resistance, and sometimes by a single vote.A landmark trial has begun in California federal court that could reshape the most popular apps on the planet: a bipartisan coalition of 29 states has put Meta on trial, alleging it deliberately designed Instagram and Facebook to addict and harm children. This is the big one we've been building toward all summer—the federal counterpart to the state cases in New Mexico and Tennessee. The states, led by Colorado, California, New Jersey, and Kentucky, told the court that Meta engineered features like infinite scrolling, notifications, “likes,” visual filters, and algorithmic recommendations to drive compulsive use, and misled the public about the platforms' safety for young people. Here's an important procedural wrinkle: while there's an eight-person jury in Oakland, it's serving only in an advisory capacity—the case will ultimately be decided by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. That's because this is largely an equitable case, and what the states are really after isn't just money but sweeping changes to how the platforms work: stronger age verification, restrictions on algorithms trained on children's data, limits on notifications, and the removal of features like infinite scroll. On damages, Meta itself has floated the staggering figure of $1.4 trillion as its potential exposure, though the states haven't named a number and legal experts consider an award anywhere near that scale unlikely. The significance is that this trial could force concrete, structural redesign of Instagram and Facebook for young users—not a settlement negotiated in private, but a judge's findings after a public trial. Everything we've tracked, from the multistate penalties to the New Mexico verdict to the Ninth Circuit clearing these suits, has been leading here. This is where the social-media reckoning gets its fullest public airing yet. Meta faces 29-state trial that could reshape Instagram and Facebook | ReutersYahoo Finance · anewsThe Justice Department has opened a civil-rights investigation into the College of William & Mary, alleging the Virginia public university runs scholarship and mentorship programs that unlawfully discriminate in favor of minority students. The Department's Civil Rights Division announced a “compliance review” under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act—which bars race discrimination by institutions that receive federal funding—targeting several specific programs: a fellowship in the education school that gives preference to Hispanic or Latina women with financial need, a doctoral mentorship program for “future education leaders of color,” and a law-school scholarship program. Here's the legal backdrop that makes this a national trend and not a one-off. After the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ended race-conscious admissions, the fight didn't end—it moved. The administration is now using Title VI to argue that race-conscious scholarships, fellowships, and pipeline programs are themselves a form of unlawful discrimination, framing programs designed to expand opportunity for underrepresented groups as illegal “discrimination in favor of minorities.” Supporters of these programs say they're lawful efforts to remedy historic exclusion and build diverse professions; critics say any use of race, even to help, runs afoul of the post-SFFA legal landscape. It's worth being precise: this is a compliance review, an investigation, not yet a lawsuit or a finding of wrongdoing. The significance is that this is part of a systematic campaign we've tracked against universities—from Harvard to Columbia—and it signals that the enforcement frontier after affirmative action has shifted from the admissions office to the financial-aid office. Every race-conscious scholarship in the country is now, potentially, a legal target. DOJ probes College of William & Mary alleging discrimination in favor of minorities | ReutersBloomberg · Fox NewsA federal judge has ordered the release of a woman charged with vandalizing the World War II Memorial in Washington—and the top federal prosecutor there, Jeanine Pirro, is not happy about it. The defendant, 41-year-old Melissa Farris of Kentucky, was arrested last week and charged with two felony counts after the memorial's fountain was filled with soap suds and the words “Clean hands Dirty $” were spray-painted across a surface in red and green. A judge ordered her released on conditions—surrendering her passport and not leaving the continental U.S. without approval—and Pirro publicly criticized that decision. Let's unpack the legal pieces, because there are two distinct ones. First, pretrial release: in the American system, the default is that a defendant awaiting trial should be released unless the government shows they're a flight risk or a danger, with conditions used to manage any risk. A judge ordering release with conditions is the system working as designed—the presumption of innocence is not an empty phrase—even when a prosecutor would prefer detention. Second, the underlying conduct: Farris reportedly said on social media that she acted to protest tax dollars not being spent on ordinary Americans and alleged corporate wrongdoing. But political motivation doesn't convert property destruction into protected speech—you can hold the message and still prosecute the spray paint. The significance ties into a thread we've followed: this is the same U.S. Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, at the center of the Reflecting Pool saga, again clashing over how a memorial-vandalism case should be handled—this time frustrated that a judge released a defendant rather than that a case was dropped. A preliminary hearing is set for September 3, and it's a reminder that the everyday machinery of bail and pretrial release keeps operating regardless of how politically charged the underlying act may be. US judge orders release of woman accused of vandalism at World War Two Memorial | ReutersWashington Post · CBS NewsAnd finally, in my column this week, I take on a well-intentioned proposal to tax artificial intelligence in order to help the workers it displaces—and argue that, while the instinct is right, the mechanism is wrong. The proposal in question is Representative Greg Casar's AI Tax and Work Protection Act. Its premise is sound: if firms are capturing the gains from replacing human workers with AI while pushing the costs—unemployment, lost tax revenue—onto workers and society, those costs look like an externality, the same way pollution does. And we tax externalities all the time: cigarettes, gasoline, carbon. So taxing AI to fund worker protections is a reasonable idea in principle.My problem is with the particulars. Casar's bill doesn't actually tax worker displacement—it taxes AI “tokens,” the technical units of AI computation, with the rate keyed to the unemployment rate. That creates an appealing feedback loop on paper: as AI drives up unemployment, the tax rises and generates more money to put people back to work. But it asks the Treasury to do two things it's genuinely bad at. First, it has to figure out, in real time and on a political calendar, how much of any given rise in unemployment is actually caused by AI, as opposed to a recession, a pandemic, or a war. That's a causal judgment the tax code has no machinery for. Second, and worse, it has to put a stable dollar value on a “token”—an unstable, non-standardized unit that spans text, code, images, audio, and video, and isn't sold in any clean arm's-length market. You're trying to tax the meter, and the meter doesn't have a reliable price.So here's the alternative I argue for: instead of taxing AI use, give the public an equity stake in the companies that capture AI's gains—let the government own a piece of the franchise rather than tax the meter. This isn't as exotic as it sounds; scholars like Jeremy Bearer-Friend and Sarah Polcz have proposed having AI firms pay tax in kind, transferring equity rather than cash, and Senator Sanders has floated a far more aggressive version—a 50% stake funding a sovereign wealth fund. My point is that you don't have to go to 50% to adopt the underlying architecture. Equity is a better proxy than token usage: it scales with the actual size of the economic reallocation AI produces, and it only asks the government to value a company once, rather than to price billions of individual computations or adjudicate whether a particular prompt cost a particular job. If AI merely augments workers and produces modest gains, the public's share stays modest; if it produces extraordinary gains, the public shares in the upside. A smaller equity assessment on the largest firms, held through an independently managed vehicle, would let the public participate in AI's wealth without handing a shrunken Treasury an impossible measurement problem. The instinct to make sure the public benefits from AI is exactly right—we should just own a piece of the thing, not tax the ticker. Taxing AI to Help Workers Sounds Good, But Public Deserves More | Bloomberg Tax 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

【聊了什么】 同样讨论总统罢免权，FTC 不是例外，美联储却是；同样声称尊重文本和原意，保守派大法官在出生公民权、投票权和跨性别权益案中，却一次次更换自己的法理工具。 本期我们与 Nancy、品达一起盘点美国最高法院 2025-2026 开庭期：特朗普的“单一行政权”走到了哪一步？谁仍然被视为美国人？《投票权法》还剩下多少效力？跨性别学生为什么被排除在女子校队之外？当法院的判决越来越只能用政治解释，偶尔对特朗普说“不”，究竟是制度制衡，还是“小骂大帮忙”？ 【支持我们】 如果喜欢这期节目并希望支持我们将节目继续做下去： 也欢迎加入我们的会员计划： https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ 会员可以收到每周2-5封newsletter，可以加入会员社群，参加会员活动，并享受更多福利。 合作投稿邮箱：american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【时间轴】 01:39 FTC 与美联储：特朗普能解雇谁 08:02 “单一行政权”如何成为保守派共识 28:29 出生公民权与谁算“美国人” 43:31 TPS 终止：移民身份和司法审查 53:35 投票权法、黑人选区与政治划区 1:02:02 最高法院还有稳定法理吗 1:13:01 跨性别学生参加女子体育案 1:20:53 校园体育为什么不能套用精英体育逻辑 1:33:32 Alito 退休乌龙与大法官的个人政治 1:41:21 Barrett 为什么总成为右翼攻击目标 1:44:36 法院改革与对特朗普“小骂大帮忙” 【我们是谁】 美轮美换是一档深入探讨当今美国政治的中文播客。 本期的主播和嘉宾： Lokin：美国法学院毕业生，即将成为一名纽约诉讼律师 王浩岚：美国政治爱好者，岚目公众号主笔兼消息二道贩子 Nancy：普林斯顿大学政治学博士生，耶鲁法学院法律博士 品达：美国政治观察人士，《孤岛繁星》主播 【 What We Talked About】 When considering the same question of presidential removal power, the Court decided that the FTC was not an exception, but the Federal Reserve was. And while the conservative justices continue to profess their commitment to textualism and originalism, they repeatedly switched doctrinal tools in cases involving birthright citizenship, voting rights, and transgender rights. In this episode, Nancy and Pinda join us to review the U.S. Supreme Court's 2025-2026 term. How far has Trump's vision of the “unitary executive” advanced? Who still counts as American? How much remains of the Voting Rights Act? Why can transgender students be excluded from girls' school sports? As the Court's decisions become increasingly difficult to explain through legal doctrine alone, do its occasional rulings against Trump represent genuine institutional checks, or merely “small rebukes, big assists”? 【Support Us】 If you like our show and want to support us, please consider the following: Join our membership program: https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/americanroulette Business Inquiries and fan mail: american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【Timeline】 01:39 The FTC and the Federal Reserve: Whom can Trump fire? 08:02 How the “unitary executive” became a conservative consensus 28:29 Birthright citizenship and who counts as “American” 43:31 Ending TPS: Immigration status and judicial review 53:35 The Voting Rights Act, majority-Black districts, and partisan redistricting 1:02:02 Does the Supreme Court still have a coherent legal doctrine? 1:13:01 The case over transgender students participating in girls' sports 1:20:53 Why school sports cannot be judged by the logic of elite athletics 1:33:32 The false report of Alito's retirement and the personal politics of the justices 1:41:21 Why Barrett remains a favorite target of the right 1:44:36 Court reform and the Supreme Court's “small rebukes, big assists” approach to Trump 【Who We Are】 The American Roulette is a podcast dedicated to helping the Chinese-speaking community understand fast-changing U.S. politics. Our Hosts and Guests: Lokin: U.S. law school student, incoming NY litigation lawyer 王浩岚 (Haolan Wang): American political enthusiast, chief writer at Lán Mù WeChat Official Account, and peddler of information Nancy：Princeton Politics PhD student, Yale Law School graduate Pinda：American political enthusiast 【The Links】 Trump v. Slaughter：总统罢免 FTC 委员与“单一行政权” Trump v. Cook：总统罢免美联储理事与央行独立性 Trump v. Barbara：出生公民权 Mullin v. Doe：海地与叙利亚 TPS 终止及司法审查 Louisiana v. Callais：黑人多数选区与《投票权法》第二条 West Virginia v. B. P. J.：跨性别学生参加女子体育运动 《纽约时报》：TPS 被终止后，美国部分行业面临劳动力短缺 Harvard Kennedy School：Louisiana v. Callais 对《投票权法》意味着什么 《纽约时报》：最高法院跨性别学生体育案的当事人 Becky Pepper-Jackson Becky Pepper-Jackson 的母亲：这个母亲节，我感谢跨性别女儿教会我的事 ACLU：关于跨性别运动员的四个常见迷思 NPR Public Editor：Nina Totenberg 误报 Alito 退休事件的经过 《纽约时报》：Amy Coney Barrett 为何再次遭到共和党右翼攻击 《纽约时报》：Ketanji Brown Jackson 做客 Michelle Obama 播客 IMO with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson：Ketanji Brown Jackson 访谈 Slow Burn: Becoming Justice Gorsuch Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)：FTC 独立性与正当理由解雇 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)：推翻 Chevron deference Seila Law v. CFPB (2020)：单一局长制与总统罢免权 United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)：“黄金德案”与出生公民权 Thornburg v. Gingles (1986)：《投票权法》第二条的 Gingles 标准 Shelby County v. Holder (2013)：削弱《投票权法》的关键判决

Thursday, August 13, 2026 Today, mixed results in the August 11th primary elections hand wins to both progressive and establishment Dems as some Trump-backed candidates falter; Jeanine Pirro has convened a special grand jury in DC; the Trump administration is set to spend nearly a billion dollars on the Emotional Support Ballroom; ICE plans to buy gloves for agents that deliver electric shocks; the Kennedy Center has been ordered to pay $250,000 in legal fees to an artist that opposed the name change; plus Allison and Dana deliver your Good News. Thank You, Fast Growing Trees Get 20% off your first purchase  FastGrowingTrees.com/dailybeans Thank You OneSkin Get 15% off OneSkin with the code DAILYBEANS at  https://www.oneskin.co/dailybeans #oneskinpod #ad The Trump Epstein Memorial Bookmobile The Daily Beans is proud to partner with Miles Taylor and our friends at DEFIANCE.org For a limited time, members of the Daily Beans community can receive a FREE 3-month full membership to DEFIANCE.org and gain access to one of the fastest-growing pro-democracy movements in America. Join here: https://www.defiance.org/beans Diamond Dames - Subscribe here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLdw5wpZniLeg&si=YB1KlvnjmA4CxxV3https://diamond-dames.simplecast.com/ Guest: Demetria McCain Director at Policy Legal Defense Fund - Legal Defense FundElection Info | Legal Defense FundElection Protection, Phone: 866 OUR-VOTE The Latest Breakdown→ NEW: Judge Orders Todd Blanche to Explain Epstein Redactions in Open Court StoriesFour takeaways from Tuesday's primaries in six states | NPR AP report: ICE plans to give its officers gloves that can deliver painful electric shocks | PBS News Trump administration set to spend at least $900 million on White House construction | The Washington Post Pirro, in rare move, convenes special grand jury in Washington | Washington Post Kennedy Center ordered to pay legal fees for Chuck Redd after judge tosses suit | The Washington Post Good TroubleTake IACCtion: Comment on the IACC Strategic Plan!Autism research is getting scary. What can we do? - YouTube →Friday August 28 in DC March On Washington 2026 -marchonwashington2026.com Check your voter registration and deadlines → Voter Registration Deadlines - Vote.org →Blue Wave California- secure.actblue.com/donate/msw-bwc →Helpline Orientation- Spanish Speakers Needed! · VoteRiders →Help save Texas from Ken Paxton! →NO HATE in WA State →Stand With Minnesota →iceout.org Good NewsProject Night Night LifeLine Animal Project Kristi for Congress TN-01 - YouTube danismart.substack.com - yes-we-all-want-to-protect-girls, NO HATE in WA State Oct 9 -Southwest Funny Fest:Dana Goldberg's Southwest FunnyFest - City of Albuquerque -Email Dana@DanaGoldberg.com for sponsorship informationTickets for Dana Goldberg: Outrageous - Sep 23 - Den Theater - Chicago  →Share your Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans →Beans Talk audio -beans-talk.simplecast.com Subscribe to the MSW on YouTube - MSW Media - YouTube Our Donation Links The Trevor Project - trevorproject.org/beans Blue Wave California - ActBlue.com/donate/msw-bwc Donate to Public Citizen - https://citizen.org/beans/ Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans Fundraiser Pathways to Citizenship - boomerang - pathways  Dana and The Daily Beans support of Human Rights Campaign ONE CAUSE HRC The Daily Beans supports It Gets BetterNational Security Counselors - Donate, WhistleblowerAid.org/beans Dr. Allison Gill - The Breakdown | Allison Gill, Mueller, She Wrote @muellershewrote.com - Bluesky, MSW & The Daily Beans Podcast @muellershewrote - Instagram, MSW Media - YouTube →Federal workers email AG - fedoath@pm.me Dana Goldberg - Dana is on Patreon! At Dana's Dugout, @dgcomedy - Bluesky, @dgcomedy - IG, Dana Goldberg - Facebook,  DanaGoldberg.com More from MSW Media - Shows, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | Allison Gill Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What happens when a Republican entrepreneur, a Democratic political strategist, and a city manager sit down—not to win an argument, but to understand each other?In one of the most thoughtful conversations we've had on American Dream Factory, Nick Smoot and Joe Toney welcome Adama Iwu, one of America's leading political strategists and one of TIME's 2017 "Silence Breakers," collectively recognized as Person of the Year for helping expose sexual harassment in politics.The conversation begins with a question Nick has wanted to ask for months.After witnessing Zohran Mamdani walk out of the West Wing following a meeting with President Trump, Nick realized something surprising: he had never actually spoken with someone who voted for Mamdani.So he asked.Why?That simple question opens the door to a remarkably honest discussion about the future of American politics, capitalism, socialism, healthcare, AI, civic engagement, and what it means to build communities that actually work for people.Adama shares her journey from growing up as an evangelical Christian and conservative to becoming one of the country's most respected voices on public policy. She explains why policies like universal childcare, public transportation, and expanded healthcare resonate with her—not as ideological positions, but as practical ways to help people flourish.Nick offers a center-right perspective, arguing for entrepreneurship, local innovation, and community-led solutions while challenging assumptions about government and economic policy.Joe guides the conversation with curiosity, helping both sides unpack difficult questions without turning disagreement into conflict.Together they explore:Why Zohran Mamdani's message connected with so many votersSocialism versus capitalism and where Americans often talk past one anotherWhether healthcare should be treated as a public goodThe future of AI regulation, privacy, and innovationOpen-source AI versus centralized technology platformsRepresentation, the Voting Rights Act, and civic participationWhy local government may matter more than national politicsBuilding stronger communities in an increasingly polarized nationOne of the recurring themes throughout the conversation is that meaningful progress rarely comes from shouting louder. It comes from asking better questions.Whether discussing healthcare, artificial intelligence, economic opportunity, or public policy, all three guests repeatedly return to the same idea: communities improve when people choose to participate rather than retreat into political tribes.The episode concludes with a reminder that democracy isn't something that happens every four years. It's something we build every day through local involvement, civic responsibility, and a willingness to engage people we disagree with.If you're looking for a conversation that challenges assumptions without demonizing people, this episode is for you.About Adama IwuAdama Iwu is a political strategist and government affairs executive with leadership experience across state government, Fortune 500 companies, and public policy. She has served in the Schwarzenegger Administration, led California Government Affairs for Farmers Insurance, served as Vice President for Political Strategy and External Partnerships at Visa, and is currently a political strategist with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.She co-founded We Said Enough, the movement that exposed widespread sexual harassment in California politics, and was recognized as one of TIME's 2017 "Silence Breakers," the collective recipients of TIME's Person of the Year honor. She also serves on the University of San Diego Board of Trustees and is a nationally recognized speaker on leadership, ethics, and public policy.American Dream Factory explores the people and ideas shaping the future of America through conversations that prioritize curiosity over certainty and solutions over slogans.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais has essentially reversed the profound progress that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 helped to usher into this country. Listen as Aaron and Damien discuss the piece “The Supreme Court Blesses the Destruction of Black Electoral Power” by Vincent M. Southerland in Hammer & Hope, which analyzes the Supreme Court's recent Louisiana v. Callais decision and its impact on the gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and reversal of Black electoral power in this country, and what we learn and take away from this incredible piece in our continued learning and unlearning work and fight for collective liberation. Follow us on social media and visit our website! ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Bluesky⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Threads⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Leave us a voice message⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Merch store⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

This Day in Legal History: Andrew Johnson Suspends Secretary StantonOn August 12, 1867, President Andrew Johnson suspended Edwin Stanton, his Secretary of War, and installed General Ulysses S. Grant to run the department temporarily. It was a quiet-sounding personnel move that lit the fuse on one of the great constitutional confrontations in American history—and it turned on a question we still argue about: how much control a president has over the officials who serve beneath him.The context was Reconstruction. Stanton was a close ally of the Radical Republicans in Congress, and as Secretary of War he controlled the Army's presence across the defeated South, including the Freedmen's Bureau—making him essential to Congress's plans to remake the region and protect the newly freed. Johnson, who bitterly opposed that agenda, wanted Stanton gone. But Congress had anticipated exactly this: it had passed the Tenure of Office Act, which barred the president from removing a Senate-confirmed cabinet officer without the Senate's consent. Johnson, trying to thread the needle while Congress was in recess, suspended Stanton rather than firing him outright. When the Senate later refused to concur and Johnson removed Stanton anyway in early 1868, the House impeached him—and he survived removal in the Senate by a single vote.The significance of August 12, 1867 reaches all the way to the present. The Tenure of Office Act was eventually repealed and, decades later, the Supreme Court in Myers v. United States suggested it had been unconstitutional all along, endorsing a robust presidential removal power—the same removal-power debate that traces back to the very first Congress and runs through today's fights over the independence of agencies and prosecutors. Johnson's clash with Stanton is the original American showdown over whether a president can be checked in the control of his own executive branch. And on a day when we've got a story about the White House leaning on the Justice Department, that 159-year-old question feels remarkably current.A federal appeals court has thrown out the government formula at the heart of the law meant to protect patients from surprise medical bills—handing a significant win to doctors and hospitals over insurers. Sitting en banc, all seventeen judges of the Fifth Circuit issued an unsigned opinion mostly siding with physicians and air-ambulance companies, and invalidating a federal rule as going beyond what Congress actually authorized in the No Surprises Act. Here's how this works, because it's less about patients than it sounds. The No Surprises Act protects you, the patient—if you get care from an out-of-network provider in an emergency, you only owe your normal in-network cost-sharing. The fight is over who pays the rest: the insurer or the provider. That gets decided in arbitration, and the key benchmark is something called the “qualifying payment amount,” or QPA. Whoever controls how the QPA is calculated basically controls who wins. The court found that federal agencies had let insurers game that number—by baking in so-called “ghost rates,” contracted amounts for services that providers never actually deliver, which dragged the benchmark down in insurers' favor—and by improperly excluding bonus and incentive payments. The significance is twofold. Substantively, it rebalances a high-stakes payment fight away from insurers and toward providers. But the deeper theme is administrative law: this is a court holding that agencies rewrote a statute to favor one side beyond what Congress wrote—exactly the kind of post-Chevron scrutiny of agency rulemaking we've been tracking all summer. The patient protections stay; the multibillion-dollar question of who pays just got sent back to the drawing board. US appeals court voids formula used to avert surprise medical bills | ReutersAmerican Medical Association · Bloomberg LawA federal judge has blocked the U.S. Postal Service nationwide from enforcing the mail-in voting restrictions in President Trump's executive order—and if this story sounds familiar to longtime listeners, it should. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston expanded an order she first issued in June, which had covered 23 states, into a nationwide injunction. Under the executive order, the Postal Service was supposed to gather state lists of eligible voters and deliver absentee ballots only to people on those lists; Talwani's ruling bars USPS from refusing to deliver mail ballots based on those new federal verification requirements. Her reasoning is the same principle we keep coming back to: the executive branch, she wrote, has no authority to regulate elections—that power belongs to the states under the Constitution. And she stressed the timing, noting it's now less than 90 days before the November 3 midterms, which makes it especially important not to let the federal government change election rules on the eve of the vote. This connects to the entire voting-rights arc we've followed—the administration's 0-and-21 losing streak on voter rolls, the Supreme Court emergency application, the Voting Rights Act anniversary. The significance is that the courts continue to hold a firm, near-unbroken line: however much the administration wants federal control over how Americans cast and count ballots, judges keep ruling that elections are run by the states, and the closer we get to November, the more urgently they're saying it. Judge blocks US Postal Service from restricting mail-in voting | ReutersNPR · US NewsThe White House has reportedly asked the Justice Department to explore bringing new charges against David Hearn—the former Olympian in the Reflecting Pool case—just over a week after the department dropped the case because its own evidence showed he didn't do it. Recall the sequence: Hearn was indicted on a felony for allegedly damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, but prosecutors then moved to dismiss, telling the court that newly disclosed documents showed the damage came from a botched renovation, not vandalism. According to sources, President Trump was furious at U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro for dismissing the case, and the White House has since asked the department to examine whether there's a basis for a new charge—possibly a misdemeanor. The talks are described as preliminary, with no decision made, and Congressman Jamie Raskin has already launched a probe into the whole affair. Here's why this is legally striking. The decision to drop the case wasn't a technicality—it was the government concluding, on the evidence, that the underlying premise was false. To now go looking for new charges against the same person, at the White House's urging and reportedly out of the president's personal anger, raises the specter of vindictive prosecution—using the charging power not to pursue justice but to punish. The significance goes to the core of prosecutorial independence, the theme running through the Blanche confirmation fight and beyond: charging decisions are supposed to be driven by evidence and law, not by a president's displeasure that a case was dropped. It's a live test of whether that line still holds. Trump White House asked DOJ to explore new Reflecting Pool charges, sources say | ReutersUS News · MS NOWAnd finally, the law graduates who suffered through California's disastrous 2025 bar exam have reached a settlement in their class action against the company that administered it. You may remember the debacle: the February 2025 California bar exam, run by the vendor Meazure Learning, collapsed into login failures, software crashes, frozen screens, and lost answers, throwing thousands of aspiring lawyers into chaos on the single most important test of their careers. That fiasco spawned multiple lawsuits—the test-takers' claims were consolidated into a class action in federal court—as well as a state audit and a legislative inquiry. This settlement resolves the graduates' own case, and it's distinct from the separate deal the State Bar itself reached with Meazure last month, in which the vendor agreed to pay the Bar $5.25 million and forgive $1.36 million in unpaid invoices. The significance connects directly to a story we covered a couple of weeks ago—the meltdown of the new NextGen exam in Washington State. Two different states, two different vendors and formats, the same underlying failure: the high-stakes gateway to the legal profession buckling under basic technology problems, and leaving the people trying to enter the profession to pick up the pieces. These settlements put a price on that failure—but they also intensify a growing question about whether the bar exam, as currently built and administered, is a reliable way to license lawyers at all. Law grads reach settlement in class action over botched California bar exam | ReutersBloomberg Law · ICLG 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

Rachel Maddow looks at how a Trump-aligned Texas oil company appears to be trying to worm its way into drilling in Greenland, provoking a threatening response not only from Greenland residents and officials, but potentially from NATO ally Denmark. Rachel Maddow reports on an anti-immigrant group in Indiana attempting to stage a "mass deportation rally," only to end up moving the poorly attended rally to a "secret location" while counterprotesters swarmed the original location to stand up for their immigrant neighbors. Immediately upon the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act, several Southern states moved to eliminate Black congressional districts. But what Republicans didn't count on was the political backlash they would trigger. Rev. Earle Fisher, senior pastor at the Abyssinian Baptist Church, talks with Rachel Maddow about activating Black voters in Tennessee who are outraged at Republicans gerrymandering away their representation. Rep. LaMonica McIver joins to discuss the ongoing fight for human rights and human treatment of immigrants imprisoned by the Trump administration. Want more of Rachel? Check out the "Rachel Maddow Presents" feed to listen to all of her chart-topping original podcasts.To listen to all of your favorite MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A new poll done by ReconMR and Texas A&M's Bush School shows strong Democratic performance with James Talarico and Vikki Goodwin up on their GOP opponents and Gina Hinojosa trailing Governor Greg Abbott by a single point. Republican hubris and failure to acknowledge the economic pain of everyday Americans is seen as their potential undoing this fall. Latinos in Harris County - as much or more so than those in South Texas - may hold the key to Democratic fortunes in November. And, as back to school arrives, a group of Houston moms have sued the state over mandatory Christianized curriculum and displays in Texas public schools.Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:Fox 7 Austin: https://www.fox7austin.com/election/texas-dan-patrick-vikki-goodwin-lieutenant-governor-poll-july-2026.ampHouston Chronicle: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/trending/article/talarico-paxton-senate-hinojosa-abbott-poll-22380973.phpKHOU 11 Houston: https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/talarico-paxton-texas-senate-poll/285-807cd9b4-fc56-429c-9172-f4c0b4a5a7c8The Hill: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/6012387-texas-florida-republican-warnings/The Latin Times: https://www.latintimes.com/houston-has-2m-latino-voters-most-them-arent-showing-that-could-decide-texas-senate-race-598470Houston Press: https://www.houstonpress.com/news/the-christianization-of-texas-public-schools/Gina Hinojosa's talk on the Voting Rights Act: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JfgCsFf8XoThis election year, you can support the real free press by investing in pro-democracy, pro-justice, pro-gressive storytelling. Become a monthly donor or increase your giving TODAY for our Summer Sustaining Donor Drive today, and we'll thank you with "perks for progress" - plus you'll get a shoutout on the Daily Dispatch: huge thanks to new monthly supporter Carolyn Frawley! Join Carolyn and the rest of the Progress Texas family now at⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://act.progresstexas.org/a/summersustainers26⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Check out the Substack version of the Daily Dispatch, which delivers each pod to your inbox and frequently includes extra video goodies:⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://substack.com/@progresstexas⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Progress Texas is now part of the lineups at⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠KPFT-FM in Houston,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Empower House Radio in San Antonio⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, and⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠KZSM True Community Radio in San Marcos⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! Make a tax-deductible contribution to our radio initiative⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://progresstexas.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠

In August of 1965, President Lyndon Johnson sighed the Voting Rights Act. President Trump wants a change. One step forward, or two steps back?  

Comprehensive coverage of the day's news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice. Iran issues ultimatum to US, says will not open Hormuz unless US “corrects its behavior” — Israel refuses to withdraw from Gaza Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed responds to Donald Trump's post about him, as progressives nationwide gain visibility California wins preliminary injunction blocking Shasta County from requiring ID to vote, in a week that marks the passage of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. A moment of silence and protest in Nagasaki, Japan as the city's Peace Bell rings out to commemorate the US bombing of the city in 1965. The mayor says nuclear weapons are “absolute evil” and opposes the government's pro-nuclear moves. And we speak with historian Ron Suny about the conflict between Russia and Ukraine The post Iran issues ultimatum to US over Hormuz; Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed responds to Trump; California wins injunction against Shasta County voter ID measure; Nagasaki commemorates the 1945 US atomic bombing appeared first on KPFA.

August 6, 2026On August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, In 1865, Americans ratified the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, outlawing enslavement except as punishment for crimes, In subsequent years, with the ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, citizenship was guaranteed to anyone born or naturalized in the US (except certain Indigenous Americans) and the right to vote was extended to Black men, These amendments gave Congress the power to enforce them, In response, white opponents hindered the ability of Black men to vote, Opposition did not gain traction until after WWII, when judges used the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to argue that states could not deprive any American of equality, Under pressure from President Dwight D Eisenhower, Congress passed civil rights acts in 1957 and 1960, and in 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which strengthened voting rights, In 1965, the Voting Rights Act became law, It was reauthorized repeatedly by large margins, but in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the provision of the law requiring that states with a history of discrimination get approval before changing voting laws, The assault on the Voting Rights Act continued in 2026, after the decision in Louisiana v Callais, The gap between white and Black voter turnout in the 2024 election was the highest since at least 2008.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

8.6.2026 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Voting Rights Act at 61. Louisiana Targets Wrongfully Convicted Black Man. Boseman Estate Fight Today is the 61st anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. We'll see how much has changed since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law. Governor Wes Moore signed legislation placing a constitutional amendment on November's ballot that could pave the way for Democrats to redraw Maryland's congressional map after the 2026 elections. Louisiana's Attorney General is blocking compensation for a black man wrongfully convicted and is actively trying to put him behind bars again. We'll have the second part of the 10th annual "Power of the Sister Vote" poll, which breaks down just how much black women trust the government. A recent lawsuit involving Chadwick Boseman's family suing his wife for his estate has stirred up bigger concerns about black people not having a will. We'll talk to an attorney and author of "A Matter of Life and Death: How to Handle Family Affairs," about the importance of estate planning. Black Star Network Partner: Chapter Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and stand alone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan’s contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you to search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don’t directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all of your options. ____ Download the Black Star Network app at http://www.blackstarnetwork.com! We're on iOS, AppleTV, Android, AndroidTV, Roku, FireTV, and SamsungTV. The #BlackStarNetwork is a news reporting platform covered under Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Donald Trump and his former cable news weekend co-host defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, are reportedly fighting over who is to blame for wasting U.S. military resources and depleting the U.S. weapons stockpile on Trump's inexplicable war on Iran. Hegseth reportedly blamed his deputy. Rep. Pat Ryan, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, joins to discuss Trump's foolhardy prosecution of the war. Donald Trump's brazen corruption is so much a part of his political identity that it has become an election issue unto itself. And when Senator Tim Scott tries to gaslight the American public into believing Trump is a model of ethics, or when JD Vance tries to pretend prosecuting fraud is an important priority of his, Trump's corruption only makes them look ridiculous. Rep. Ro Khanna joins to discuss. Mitch Landrieu and Jennifer Palmieri discuss the shifting politics in the American South. Stacey Abrams joins to talk about resurrecting the protections of the Voting Rights Act. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

“Democracy didn't fall out of the sky. It was earned. It was created, and it was made manifest through protest.” — Gloria Browne-Marshall Yesterday, Casey Michel described a United States of Oligarchy where the wealthy cosy up to dictators and destroy democracy. Today, Gloria Browne-Marshall describes a parallel America. In A Protest History of the United States, she explores 500 years of profound protest to what Michel coins the banality of the deal. If Casey Michel described the few who own the country, then Gloria Browne-Marshall chronicles the many who made it. Her thesis is that a nation born of protest has been protesting with itself ever since. So Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence while owning the teenaged Sally Hemings. Democracy is protest's child, not its parent. Rather than just falling out of the sky, she argues, American democracy was earned by protesters like her great hero, Daisy Bates, the Little Rock organizer whose mother was murdered by a white mob. So where's the protest now? “Too many people have outsourced their sense of outrage,” Gloria Browne-Marshall argues. Thus our Covid silos and the capitulating law firms. Her prescription for this malaise is, of course, to get out on the streets. She reminds us that the anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, with its quarter of a million protesters, is coming up at the end of the month. So it's been done before. And will be done again. The United States of protest rather than of oligarchy. That's who we are. Sometimes, at least. Five Takeaways •       A Nation in Protest with Itself. America was born of protest — the Declaration itself was a protest document — and has argued with itself ever since: the empire builder rolling over the rights of others on one side, liberty-and-justice-for-all on the other. Jefferson embodies the conflict: theorist of protest, author of the Declaration, slaveholder at Monticello with the teenaged Sally Hemings. And the artists matter as much as the marchers, Browne-Marshall argues, in a hand-off from Monday's Curtis White conversation: the Depression photographs that moved a government, The Grapes of Wrath doing what no pamphlet could — art brings the humanity of the issue to the fore.•       Democracy Didn't Fall Out of the Sky. Asked about the d-word, Browne-Marshall answers that she expected it to be dissent. Democracy came by way of protest: the workers, the women, the marginalized earned rights nobody was volunteering to hand over. Vernon Dahmer was burned alive in his Mississippi home in 1966 — in a democracy — for trying to vote; Seneca Falls in 1848 became the Nineteenth Amendment only in 1920. The Voting Rights Act gave nobody the vote; it protected a right people were dying to use. And protest's victories hide in plain sight: the end of mandatory retirement at 65, disabled children in mainstream classrooms — all of it protested into existence.•       January 6 and the Meaning of Nonviolence. Is January 6 a protest? Yes, she allows — a protest with criminal consequences, like any protest that turns violent; rob a bank and call it a protest against poverty and the consequences still arrive. Nonviolence, meanwhile, is the most misunderstood word in the American vocabulary: a philosophy — Gandhi to Bayard Rustin to King — in which protesters will not strike back even when attacked. It is not a standard that applies only to Black protesters while the actual violence, historically, comes from those attacking them. January 6, with its gallows, its ransacked offices, and its hunted officials, was many things; nonviolent protest it was not.•       No Pension Fund: Daisy Bates. Browne-Marshall's favorite figure in the book: the Little Rock organizer who learned at nine that the woman raising her was not her mother — her mother had been murdered by a white mob and thrown in the pond where Daisy swam as a child. She guided the Little Rock Nine into Central High under armed National Guard escort amid daily death threats; as NAACP secretary she chose jail over surrendering the membership list, a refusal that went to the Supreme Court; she faced sexism inside the movement itself, spoke before the United Nations — and died nearly penniless, fed by neighbors. Protest has no vacation plan and no pension fund. (Mother Jones was smuggled into the same answer. “You're cheating.” “I know. I am.”)•       Outsourced Outrage. Why the relative quiet now? COVID scattered Americans into silos; the administration's shock-and-awe blitz kept them off balance; masked, nameless ICE agents and capitulating law firms (Paul Weiss, by name) spread fear; and — echoing Claire Stapleton's moral-compass warning from earlier this week — “too many people have outsourced their sense of outrage,” mistaking an email or an Instagram post for action. What's needed: leaders willing to fight, strategy and alliances, visible plans, and a protest that is for something — democracy, diversity, health, literacy. The model remains the March on Washington, whose anniversary falls August 28: one hundred organizers, a quarter-million regular people, and a government reminded of its own Constitution. About the Guest Gloria J. Browne-Marshall is a professor of constitutional law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, a civil rights attorney, and an award-winning playwright whose work has been staged and televised. Her books include She Took Justice, The Voting Rights War, and Race, Law, and American Society. She is the founder of Martyrs Day, observed July 5 in honor of slain protesters, and host of the forthcoming She Took Justice podcast. A Protest History of the United States (Beacon Press, ReVisioning History series), winner of the 2026 Independent Publisher Book Awards gold medal for history, is now out in paperback. She lives in New York City. References: •       A Protest History of the United States by Gloria J. Browne-Marshall (Beacon Press) — 500 years of resistance, from Powhatan's stand against the English in 1607 to the climate protests of today.•       Curtis White's On Resistance — Monday's Keen On conversation on cultural resistance, to which this episode is the historian's reply.•       Claire Stapleton's Don't Be Evil — whose warning against outsourcing your moral compass finds its twin in Browne-Marshall's “outsourced outrage.”•       The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck — her example of art doing what no pamphlet can: bringing the humanity of an issue to the fore.•       Daisy Bates and the Little Rock Nine — Central High School in Little Rock still stands as what Browne-Marshall calls a living monument to protest.•      &nbs...

This Day in Legal History: The Gulf of Tonkin ResolutionOn August 7, 1964, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, one of the most consequential—and most cautionary—delegations of power in American history. The vote was overwhelming: unanimous in the House, and 88 to 2 in the Senate. The resolution authorized President Lyndon Johnson “to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression” in Southeast Asia—and it became the legal foundation for the escalation of the Vietnam War, all without a formal declaration of war.The resolution passed after Johnson told the public that North Vietnamese torpedo boats had made unprovoked attacks on two U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. In the years that followed, serious doubts emerged about what had actually happened—particularly regarding the second reported attack, which may never have occurred at all. Congress, acting on the president's account and in a moment of Cold War urgency, handed the executive branch what amounted to a blank check for war. At the time there were only about 25,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam; that number would eventually exceed half a million.The significance of August 7, 1964 is that it became the defining lesson in the dangers of Congress ceding its war powers to the president. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war precisely because the founders feared executive war-making, and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution showed what happens when the legislature abdicates that role. The backlash shaped a generation of law: Congress rescinded the resolution in 1970, and in 1973 passed the War Powers Resolution over President Nixon's veto, trying to claw back some control over the commitment of American forces. It's a permanent reminder—resonant on a day full of stories about the reach of executive power—that authority handed over in a crisis is very hard to take back.The Trump administration's campaign to force states to hand over their voter registration data has now lost twenty-one court cases in a row—an unbroken streak of defeats as the November midterms approach. According to a Reuters analysis, the Justice Department has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia seeking their voter rolls, and it has gone zero for twenty-one, with federal courts from Pennsylvania to California to Michigan, plus the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, all rejecting the effort. Here's the detail that really tells the story: seven of the fifteen district judges who ruled against the administration were appointed by Trump himself, and some Republican state officials—in Idaho, Kentucky, Utah, and West Virginia—have resisted the requests too. This isn't a partisan split; it's a near-consensus rejection. The legal problem is structural. Under the Constitution, the administration of elections is primarily the job of the states, and courts have repeatedly found the federal government lacks the authority to simply demand statewide voter data. We've tracked the pieces of this all summer—the SAVE database fights, the threats to prosecute election officials, the mail-in voting order—and this is the throughline: a coordinated push for federal control over election machinery running headlong into a judiciary, staffed partly by the president's own appointees, that keeps saying no. The significance is that the courts are holding a hard line on the decentralized structure of American elections, and doing it unanimously enough that it's hard to dismiss as politics. It's a fitting counterpoint to yesterday's Voting Rights Act anniversary: sixty years apart, the fights over who controls the ballot continue. Analysis: Trump loses 21 straight court battles for state voter rolls as midterms near | ReutersCBS News · Brennan CenterPresident Trump has signed two new executive orders attempting to narrow birthright citizenship—despite the fact that the Supreme Court rejected his last attempt just over a month ago. Recall that on June 30, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, striking down his earlier order. These new orders are narrower. The White House is taking aim at “birth tourism”—foreigners traveling to the U.S. specifically to give birth—and at denying birthright citizenship to children of some foreign diplomatic staff, with the possibility of extending limits to U.S. territories later. It's worth being precise here, because the two pieces are legally very different. The diplomatic-staff piece actually sits on firmer ground: the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and children of accredited foreign diplomats have long been recognized as a genuine exception. But the birth-tourism piece runs straight into the June ruling, which held that a child's citizenship doesn't depend on the immigration status or purpose of the parents. And crucially, these are executive orders—they set executive-branch policy, but they don't carry the force of a statute or override a constitutional holding. After his June loss, Trump had called on Congress to act; instead he's gone back to the executive-order well. The significance is a real test of what a president can do after the Supreme Court has ruled against him on constitutional grounds. Legal experts say it's unclear what practical effect these orders can even have, and fresh legal challenges are all but certain. It's an attempt to chip at the edges of a ruling the administration couldn't overturn head-on. Trump to sign orders on birthright citizenship, Axios reports | ReutersCBS News · Al JazeeraAnd finally, a New Mexico judge has ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a teen mental-health fund and to substantially overhaul how its platforms work for young users—one of the most significant rulings yet in the wave of litigation over social media and children. Judge Bryan Biedscheid in Santa Fe found that Meta created a “public nuisance” in New Mexico, siding with Attorney General Raúl Torrez—the same AG who, as we noted yesterday, is suing the Justice Department over the Epstein files. Torrez had accused Meta of designing its products to addict young users and failing to protect children from sexual exploitation on its platforms. The “public nuisance” theory is worth flagging, because it's the same legal tool that drove the big opioid settlements: the idea that a company's conduct created a widespread harm to the public that it can be forced to help abate. And the money is only part of it. The judge imposed a five-year decree requiring concrete design changes—monthly limits on teens' time on Facebook and Instagram, restrictions on notifications, tighter controls on adult contact with minors, safeguards around AI chatbots, and enhanced review of child sexual abuse reports. This lands amid everything we've tracked: the Tennessee trial that just opened, the multistate penalty fight, the bellwether cases. Meta says it will appeal and that it's been working to remove harmful content. The significance is that a court hasn't just put a price on Meta's conduct—it has ordered the company to redesign its products for kids, backed by the public-nuisance theory. If that approach holds up on appeal, it's a template other states will follow, and it moves the social-media reckoning from damages into the far more consequential territory of forced design change. New Mexico court orders Meta to pay $567 mln teen mental health fund | ReutersWashington Post · Yahoo Finance 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

The Voting Rights Act outlawed literacy tests and authorised federal officials to oversee voter registration in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, resulting in a substantial increase in voter registration and political participation among African Americans in the years that ...

Hawk breaks down Trump's reaction, a Truth Social post calling El-Sayed a communist, alleging fraud in Wayne County, and warning of a rigged election. Hawk argues the cities Trump singles out when he cries fraud, going back to 2020, are consistently those with large Black and Latino populations, and connects it to the Supreme Court's rollback of the Voting Rights Act. He also covers JD Vance's response and the pattern of pardons for fraud convictions, work tracked by former pardon attorney Liz Oyer. The confirmation math is the other thread. With the Senate at 52 present votes, Blanche can lose only two Republicans. Susan Collins is a no, Lisa Murkowski is undecided, and Louisiana's Bill Cassidy told SiriusXM he is not yet convinced, drawing a distinction between an attorney general who was once Trump's lawyer and a personal lawyer who is now attorney general. Hawk closes on the Florida subpoena of Anthony Fauci, arguing Fauci held an advisory role with no authority to order anyone. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Comprehensive coverage of the day's news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice. El Niño climate pattern (Science Magazine image) Climate scientists warn rare Super El Niño could bring heavy storms, wildfires  to state; Senate committee moves to hold Fauci in contempt of congress, 3 state Attorneys General subpoena retired immunologist; Senate committee considering task force on Social Security solvency, Dems urge higher SS tax on rich; FCC votes to let cell phones connect to satellites, expand high-speed internet for rural clinics and hospitals; Astronauts complete US's 96th space walk outside International Space Station, day after SpaceX rocket crashes into moon; Hiroshima marks 81st anniversary of US atomic bombing of Hiroshima; President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act on this date in 1965 The post Climate scientists warn Super El Nino could bring heavy storms, wildfires to CA; Senate committee moves to hold Fauci in contempt of congress – August 6, 2026 appeared first on KPFA.

This Day in Legal History: The Voting Rights Act of 1965On August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, arguably the most effective civil-rights statute in American history. Johnson signed it at the Capitol, and after a ceremony in the Rotunda, he moved to the President's Room near the Senate Chamber—the same room where Abraham Lincoln had signed a bill freeing enslaved people pressed into Confederate service—flanked by congressional leaders, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and others who had fought and bled for this moment.The Act was a direct response to the machinery of disenfranchisement that Southern states had built after Reconstruction. For nearly a century, literacy tests, poll taxes, and outright intimidation had kept Black Americans from the ballot box despite the Fifteenth Amendment's guarantee. The Voting Rights Act attacked that machinery head-on: it banned literacy tests, and—crucially—in Section 5, it required jurisdictions with the worst histories of discrimination to “preclear” any change to their voting rules with the federal government before those changes could take effect. It also authorized federal examiners to register voters directly. The impact was immediate and staggering: over a quarter-million new Black voters registered by the end of 1965 alone.The significance of August 6, 1965 is that it transformed American democracy by finally making the promise of the Fifteenth Amendment real. But it's also a living, contested statute, which is why it belongs in the news and not just the history books. In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court effectively disabled the Section 5 preclearance requirement, holding that the formula for deciding which jurisdictions were covered was outdated. In the years since, fights over voting rules, voter rolls, and ballot access—many of which we've covered on this show—have unfolded on the terrain the Voting Rights Act created and that Shelby County reshaped. Sixty years on, the argument the Act tried to settle is still very much open.A court filing has revealed the striking scale of the aftermath of one of the biggest separation-of-powers rulings in years: the U.S. government has already refunded about $100 billion in tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down. According to the filing in the U.S. Court of International Trade, roughly $100 billion in refunds—duties plus interest—had been completed as of the end of July, representing more than half of the $166 billion the government had collected under the invalidated tariffs. Here's the backstory. After returning to office, President Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—a law meant for genuine national emergencies—to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners. This February, the Supreme Court ruled he had exceeded his authority, holding that IEEPA doesn't hand the president that kind of open-ended tariff power. Now the bill is coming due, and the refunds go to the importers who paid the duties in the first place. There's a direct line from this to a story we covered last week: after losing the IEEPA tariffs at the Supreme Court, the administration reached for Section 338, a dormant 1930s trade statute, to hit Canada—a workaround that itself invites fresh legal challenge. The significance is a vivid, hundred-billion-dollar lesson in the cost of executive overreach. When a president stretches a statute past its limits and the courts say no, the consequences aren't abstract—they're measured in massive refunds and a scramble for new legal authority. It's the separation of powers with a price tag attached. US refunds $100 billion in tariffs struck down by Supreme Court, filing shows | ReutersNBC News · US NewsNew data shows that entry-level hiring at the country's largest law firms has fallen—and the reasons say a lot about where the profession is heading. According to the National Association for Law Placement, firms with more than 500 lawyers pulled back on hiring associates straight out of law school, and for the first time in memory, those firms brought in more lateral associates—attorneys with prior experience—than fresh graduates. Laterals made up about 49% of associate hires, while entry-level grads fell to roughly 38%, a sharp drop from the 46% share they'd held. Three forces are driving this, and the middle one should get your attention. First, clients increasingly want sophisticated, autonomous counsel who can hit the ground running. Second—and this is the newsy part—artificial intelligence is absorbing exactly the kind of tasks that used to be assigned to first-year associates: document review, initial research, first drafts. Third, there's a deep pool of experienced lateral talent available to poach. The significance is both immediate and long-term. In the short run, it's a harder market for new graduates entering six-figure debt into a profession that's hiring fewer of them. But there's a real structural risk the report flags: the junior-associate years are how firms train the next generation of partners. If AI hollows out entry-level work and firms stop hiring and mentoring juniors, they may find themselves, a decade from now, with no mid-level talent to promote—having automated away the bottom of the pipeline that feeds the top. It's a preview of a question every knowledge profession is about to face. Entry-level hiring at large US law firms declined for first time in a decade, data shows | ReutersLaw.com (American Lawyer) · NALPNew Mexico has sued the U.S. Justice Department for access to the unredacted files on Jeffrey Epstein, accusing the federal government of stonewalling the state's own investigation. New Mexico's attorney general, Raúl Torrez, reopened the state's Epstein investigation earlier this year and requested the unredacted federal files to identify people—visitors and staff at Epstein's Zorro Ranch property in New Mexico—who allegedly participated in or witnessed crimes. The state says the DOJ reneged on a 2019 arrangement under which New Mexico paused its own probe and turned evidence over to federal authorities in exchange for continued information-sharing. The Justice Department counters that under the Epstein Files Transparency Act and protective court orders, it is neither required nor permitted to disclose victim-identifying information, and that New Mexico has offered “no lawful basis” for such sweeping disclosures. Torrez put the stakes plainly: the state says it needs to see those files before it can decide whether to charge anyone. The significance is a genuine legal collision between two legitimate interests. On one side is a state prosecutor who says he can't do justice—can't bring charges—without evidence the federal government is holding. On the other are real statutory and court-ordered protections for the privacy of victims, which exist for good reason in a case defined by the sexual abuse of young women and girls. It's also another chapter in the long-running, politically charged fight over transparency in the Epstein files, an issue that has repeatedly surfaced around this administration. A court will now have to weigh a state's investigative need against federal victim-protection rules. New Mexico sues US government for access to Epstein files | ReutersAl Jazeera· UPIAnd finally, OpenAI has asked a federal judge to throw out Apple's lawsuit accusing it of stealing trade secrets—a case we covered when Apple filed it back in July. To recap, Apple alleged that OpenAI misappropriated its confidential information to jump-start its own push into consumer hardware, using former Apple employees, aggressive recruiting, and supply-chain connections. In its motion to dismiss, OpenAI calls the allegations “baseless” and makes a pointed argument: “OpenAI has no use, need, or desire for Apple's trade secrets,” its lawyers wrote, insisting it's “building something entirely new and different from anything at Apple.” OpenAI's core defense is to reframe the story—not as theft of secrets, but as ordinary competition for talent. It says its real interest is in recruiting top engineers, many of whom simply chose to leave Apple for more exciting work. And that reframing goes right to the heart of trade-secret law. Hiring a competitor's employees is completely legal—people are free to change jobs and use the general skills and knowledge they've built. What's illegal is taking or using the former employer's specific, protected confidential information. So the whole case turns on which side of that line the conduct falls: lawful talent raid, or unlawful secret-grab. The judge is set to hear arguments on October 1, and OpenAI faces an August 17 deadline to respond to Apple's request for a preliminary injunction. The significance is that this is shaping up to be a marquee test of where the law draws the line between competing for people and stealing their knowledge—a question that will define a lot of fights in the AI talent wars.OpenAI asks US judge to dismiss Apple's trade secrets case | ReutersBloomberg · Axios 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

The Voting Rights Act turns 61 amid renewed concern over voting protections for Black Americans. Advocates point to Supreme Court decisions, redistricting battles and restrictive state laws as ongoing threats while highlighting signs of increased voter engagement. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this Rewind episode, listen as Dr. David J. Johns discusses voting and our rights under attack.The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is gone. Not weakened. Not under threat. Gone. The legal architecture that turned 7% Black voter registration in Mississippi into 60%—dismantled, decision by decision, by a Supreme Court that was never neutral and was never on our side.But that's not even the whole story. Because while the courts were killing the VRA, the Justice Department was being turned into a weapon. FBI agents raided a Black state senator's office mid-day—Fox News already on the scene—while allies under federal investigation had their evidence destroyed. Ballots from Fulton County are in federal custody. Arizona. Michigan. They are building the architecture of election interference before the midterms. In public. And most people don't even know it's happening.This episode is about all of it. The Proud Boys as a militia. The Roberts Court as an antidemocratic enforcement mechanism. The Southern Strategy, sixty years old and running on steroids. And the organizing tradition—Ella Baker, Bayard Rustin, Hungary's opposition movement—that proves rigged maps can be beaten and stolen futures can be reclaimed.This is the class I didn't want to have to teach. But you need it. Pull up.SHOW NOTESThe death of the Voting Rights Act—Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Brnovich v. DNC (2021), and the April 29, 2026 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which Justice Elena Kagan called "all but a dead letter."The pardon of 1,500+ January 6th participants and the DOJ's move to vacate the seditious conspiracy convictions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders.The FBI raid on Fulton County's election center, the subpoenas targeting Arizona and Michigan 2024 ballots, and what it means for the midterms.The mid-day FBI raid on Virginia State Senator Louise Lucas's office, with Fox News cameras already rolling—and not one charge filed.The two-tier justice system in plain sight: evidence destroyed for allies, prosecutions launched against opponents.Elie Mystal's proposal to add 20 justices to structurally change the Supreme Court's incentive for extremism.How Hungary's opposition built 208 local chapters and 50,000 poll watchers—and won a supermajority against a gerrymandered map.The Afrofuturist tradition of Ella Baker and Bayard Rustin as the organizing inheritance we carry forward.Black Power War Room — blackpowerwarroom.com National Black Justice Coalition — nbjc.org NBJC Equity Week — nbjc.orgBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/teach-the-babies-w-dr-david-j-johns--6173854/support.

 In April this year, the US Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's voting map on the grounds that state lawmakers had violated the constitution by creating a second district with a majority of Black voters.  This was followed by a similar decision by the court in June, giving Alabama the green light to eliminate a Black majority district. At the same time, President Trump has called for more restrictive voting laws and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the upcoming midterms. To discuss what the decision in Louisiana v. Callais means for future US elections and the long erosion of voting rights protections, from the limitations of the 15th amendment to the evisceration of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Adam Shatz is joined by Mara Gay, a staff writer at the New York Times, and Randall Kennedy, a professor of law at Harvard. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, President Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow him to implement an executive order aimed at making it much harder to vote by mail. The order would direct the Department of Homeland Security to create “state citizenship lists” of eligible voters and require the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to people on those lists.  It's part of the president's ongoing attacks on the election system.  Political Breakdown has been examining election integrity in America over the past few weeks, and today they revisit the first episode in that series.  Host Marisa Lagos talks with historian Carol Anderson, a professor of African American Studies at Emory University and author of “One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression is Destroying our Democracy.” They take a look at the nation's history of voting from Reconstruction and Jim Crow to the civil rights era and the recent gutting of the Voting Rights Act.  Check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠Political Breakdown's weekly newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠, delivered straight to your inbox. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We run through some of the major cases from the Supreme Court's most recent term including those on the Voting Rights Act, campaign spending, mail-in ballots, tariffs, executive power, and birthright citizenship with Harvard Law Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos.

Faith leaders decry ICE violence, postal workers defend mail-in voting and Black leaders gather in Nashville to dissect the erosion of the Voting Rights Act.

There is a coordinated effort to suppress the votes of Black folks. SCOTUS weakened the Voting Rights Act in their Louisiana v. Calais decision, and redistricting has papered over majority-Black districts. However, courts have prevented the Trump administration from limiting mail-in ballots, and there are measures to be taken to restore and protect our right to vote. Join Bakari Sellers and guests for this special bonus segment from the NAACP’s 117th National Convention. GUESTS Kristen Clarke – NAACP General Counsel Don Leonard Scott Jr – Virginia State House Speaker IN THIS EPISODE 00:00:00 Intro 1:50 The New Battles for Voting Rights 16:35 What’s Coming Next? 24:45 CTAs SUBMIT A QUESTION If you’d like to submit a question, check out our tutorial video: www.instagram.com/reel/C5j_oBXLIg0/ 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; 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.

What Does the Confederacy's Legacy Mean for the Modern South and Christian America?   Host Curtis Chang and New York Times columnist, and Good Faith podcast "founding friend," David French confront the enduring power of the Confederate myth. David reflects on growing up as a white Southerner in a culture shaped by Confederate symbols, revisionist history, racial injustice, and a deeply rooted shame-and-honor code. Curtis, a Chinese American immigrant, brings an outsider's perspective that challenges familiar assumptions about heritage, memory, and belonging. Together, they examine Confederate monuments, the theological defenses of slavery, the meaning of "heritage, not hate," and whether honest historical reckoning can lead to redemption and reconciliation.   02:51 - Curtis Congratulates David on the Birth of His Latest Grandchild 05:54 - Why Does the Confederacy Still Matter? 10:12 - The South's Distinct Cultural Cohesion 22:19 - "Heritage, Not Hate": A White Southern Perspective 29:52 - Race, Religion, and Revisionism in the South 42:13 - The Resurgence of Explicit Racism 47:20 - What to Do with Confederate Memorials 56:32 - Repenting of Southern Shame-Honor Culture 01:01:32 - Institutions Founded on Injustice Can Carry Spiritual Darkness   Sign up for The After Party Informational Webinars Sign up for The Good List   Mentioned in This Episode: Learn about the Tulsa Race Massacre Learn about The Great Migration Watch MLK50 Conference (video) More about General George H. Thomas More about the Southern Baptist Convention and slavery What is Kinism More about the South's resistance to Reconstruction Read the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Watch: Selma and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (video)   Scriptures: Ephesians 6:12 (ESV) Colossians 2:15 (ESV) Luke 10:25–37 (ESV) Matthew 20:16 (ESV) Matthew 10:39 (ESV)   More From David French: David French's New York Times pieces HERE Follow David French on Threads   Follow Us: Good Faith on Instagram Good Faith on X (formerly Twitter) Good Faith on Facebook   The Good Faith Podcast is a production of a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan organization that does not engage in any political campaign activity to support or oppose any candidate for public office. Any views and opinions expressed by any guests on this program are solely those of the individuals and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of Good Faith.

Julia Azari, Professor of Political Science at Marquette University, has a new, award-winning[*] book centering on the connection between race and the American presidency, specifically in the reaction to presidents who made progress on the issue of race in the United States. Backlash Presidents: From Transformative to Reactionary Leaders in American History focuses on four different periods in American political history and a number of different presidential administrations including: Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump. Race and the American presidency are not usually topics that are looped together, and this is also part of the point that Azari is making in the book, since presidents often try to elide racial politics and policy issues. Race is also not usually connected to presidential impeachments, but this is yet another key point that Azari raises, connecting racial progress, the backlash responses, and the subsequent impeachments. In noting these connections, Azari threads examples over time where presidents directly confronted race in American politics, working towards more racial equality, and how these efforts also prompt a backlash response. The key case studies in Backlash Presidents are Abraham Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War in the 1860s, Lyndon Johnson's efforts in the 1960s in regard to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, as well as anti-poverty legislation, and finally Barack Obama as the first Black president of the United States, which was both symbolic and structural. Backlash Presidents traces not only the progress made during these administrations, but also the responses that followed in the subsequent administrations. It is these next administrations, of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Donald Trump, where each of these presidents were either impeached or were about to be impeached, and how this dynamic pulls together a variety of different threads to help us to understand presidential politics, institutional development, and American political history all in context of the question of race. Azari's research is connected to the idea of political time, but with the important addition of pulling out the problem of race in the United States. Backlash Presidents contributes to our thinking about not only the time and context of presidents and their administrations, but also to thinking about what it is that presidents do to politics itself. Part of this analysis also interrogates populism, positioning these movements within the context of racial backlash, while also building out the understanding of the president's position within his own party, especially during these fraught periods. In each of the key examples, Azari highlights the ways in which Johnson, Nixon, and Trump were outsiders to what was going on inside their parties—in each case the Republican Party at the time—and how these shifting partisan foundations opened up different kinds of vulnerabilities for these presidents. In each of the case studies, there is also the discussion of the role that the U.S. Congress plays, since they are the actors who move towards impeaching and trying the president. Members of the House of Representatives need to move beyond constraints in order to impeach a president, and in these instances, they have concluded that the president is not correct in some basic and meaningful way, that the president is not upholding his oath of office, and is also undermining the forward movement on race and racial equality. Backlash Presidents: From Transformation to Reactionary Leaders in American History is a deeply researched analysis, with important historical context and details to help flesh out the particular time period under consideration. The examination is further complicated and built out with important understandings of party politics in the United States, and how president fits into their political party, or may be seen as an outsider. Racial dynamics in the United States undergirds the entire theory, and helps us see the tensions within partisan politics, presidential politics, and American democracy. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-host of the New Books in Political Science channel at the New Books Network. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume I: The Infinity Saga (University Press of Kansas, 2022), and of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Volume II: Into the Multiverse (University Press of Kansas, 2025) as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012). She can be reached @gorenlj.bsky.social [*] The Presidents and Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association awarded Backlash Presidents the 2025 Richard E. Neustadt Best Book Award, given for the best book on executive politics published during the year. 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

Sending FBI Director Kash Patel to Moscow right before the Midterms is like sending a coked-up frat boy into a whorehouse in hell, and the FSB will eat him alive. As Trump pushes the SAVE Act to disenfranchise millions, is he calling in Russian reinforcements to steal Congress?  Can we overcome a gutted Voting Rights Act, MAGA poll taxes, and Russian cyber warfare and disinformation brainrotting? Yes. By treating our vote as sacred and doing the unglamorous, powerful grassroots work that wins elections–and ensured Zohran Mamdani defeated Andrew Cuomo not once, but twice. We deserve nice things–but we must work for them. That's how progress gets made. Our heroes who came before us felt demoralized and tired, too. Andrea's new book, A Reasonable Guide for Unreasonable Women: 20 Steps to Find Your Purpose and Power in a World on Fire, shares some of their stories and insights. We can put an end to Trump and Putin's dreams of turning America into a Russian-style oligarchy by remembering our power.  On this week's show, we're joined by comedian and activist Pete Dominick of the Stand Up with Pete Dominick podcast. We break down the Epstein files, media intimidation, and the growing resistance to authoritarianism. In our bonus show, available exclusively for our Patreon and Substack supporters, we name names of who in the media enabled Trump's rise, and Pete shares what it was like trolling Trump to his face on The Apprentice.  We refuse to let them steal our future and our children's futures. Come discuss this and more at the Gaslit Nation Salon this Monday at 4pm ET. We could not produce this independent journalism or build this resilience community without you. Join us, get access to the Salons, and hear Part II of our interview with Pete Dominick by subscribing at Patreon.com/Gaslit or GaslitNation.Substack.com today. EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION: Gaslit Nation Salons take place Mondays 4pm ET over Zoom and are recorded and shared on Patreon.com/Gaslit and GaslitNation.Substack.com for our community New! There's now a California Signal Group for Gaslit Nation listeners to find each other and connect in that state. Join on Patreon or Substack! The Gaslit Nation Outreach Committee discusses how to talk to the MAGA cult: Join on Patreon or Substack! Minnesota Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other: Join on Patreon or Substack! Vermont Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other: Join on Patreon or Substack! Arizona-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to connect. Join on Patreon or Substack! Indiana-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to join. Join on Patreon or Substack! Florida-based listeners are going strong meeting in person. Be sure to join their Signal group. Join on Patreon or Substack! As always, keep it kind in our chat groups, extend grace and assume good faith. A culture of care is how we build a better world.  Join our community of listeners and get bonus shows, ad free listening, group chats with other listeners, ways to shape the show, invites to exclusive events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Discounted annual memberships are available. Become a Democracy Defender at Patreon.com/Gaslit Show Notes: Pre-order Andrea's new book today! A Reasonable Guide for Unreasonable Women: 20 Steps to Find Your Purpose and Power in a World on Fire https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/807202/a-reasonable-guide-for-unreasonable-women-by-andrea-chalupa/ Listen to Stand Up! With Pete Dominick https://standupwithpete.com/ Murkowski: SAVE Act Could Require $1,000 Trips to Register to Vote https://www.newsweek.com/murkowski-save-act-could-require-1000-trips-to-register-to-vote-12214305 Trump says he spoke with Sen. Lindsey Graham hours before his death President Donald Trump said Graham called him to discuss the SAVE America Act on Saturday. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/trump-phone-call-lindsey-graham-death-save-act-rcna552732  FBI Director Kash Patel plans Russia trip The plans come as the U.S. and Russia have failed to come to terms on ending the war in Ukraine. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/20/kash-patel-fbi-russia-trip-01005078  US, Russian teams met in Florida and discussed 'variety of topics,' Witkoff says https://www.reuters.com/world/us-russian-teams-met-florida-discussed-variety-topics-witkoff-says-2026-03-12/

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

The Supreme Court just closed out its most consequential term in a generation — gutting the Voting Rights Act, ending 90 years of independent agency precedent and testing the limits of presidential power.Democracy Docket founder Marc Elias hosted a panel of legal experts to break down the key decisions shaping democracy: Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who argued Louisiana v. Callais before the Supreme Court; Joyce Vance, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama; and Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, who was lead attorney in the lower courts on Trump v. Barbara and part of the team that defended it before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in decades—and Amicus brought together three heavyweight legal experts to break down the damage. Their conversation centers on the biggest themes of the recent term: Congress has been sidelined completely; the Court is the final arbiter of all things; hubris has become the methodology, and the midterms should worry us all. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill, legal historian Nikolas Bowie, and Supreme Court expert Stephen Vladeck. The panel dissects a term defined by judicial supremacy: the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in Callais and Milligan, the “unitary executive” power grab in Trump v. Slaughter, the birthright citizenship fight that never should have been argued, and a shadow docket that increasingly infects the merits docket. They trace how the court has hollowed out Congress' power to legislate, rewritten the meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments, and applied its own rules with striking inconsistency—all while shrugging off any need to justify itself.The conversation closes with a hard question: What can actually be done about a court that's this unaccountable? The panel offers concrete ideas, from congressional hearings on court reform to a new Voting Rights Act—and the hosts preview Amicus' upcoming series, By the People.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in decades—and Amicus brought together three heavyweight legal experts to break down the damage. Their conversation centers on the biggest themes of the recent term: Congress has been sidelined completely; the Court is the final arbiter of all things; hubris has become the methodology, and the midterms should worry us all. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill, legal historian Nikolas Bowie, and Supreme Court expert Stephen Vladeck. The panel dissects a term defined by judicial supremacy: the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in Callais and Milligan, the “unitary executive” power grab in Trump v. Slaughter, the birthright citizenship fight that never should have been argued, and a shadow docket that increasingly infects the merits docket. They trace how the court has hollowed out Congress' power to legislate, rewritten the meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments, and applied its own rules with striking inconsistency—all while shrugging off any need to justify itself.The conversation closes with a hard question: What can actually be done about a court that's this unaccountable? The panel offers concrete ideas, from congressional hearings on court reform to a new Voting Rights Act—and the hosts preview Amicus' upcoming series, By the People.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The rules of the midterms are being rewritten, from redistricting to campaign money. Mother Jones journalist Ari Berman explains why President Trump seems "obsessed with the mechanics of voting." He spoke with Tonya Mosley about the SCOTUS decision that he calls the "final blow" to the Voting Rights Act, how the SAVE Act could disenfranchise thousands, and what keeps him up at night.Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter Follow us on Instagram Subscribe to our YouTube channel Check out the Fresh Air Archives See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Chief Justice Roberts may have just penned the Birthright Citizenship decision with flowery language about the "right to have rights" in America, but at the very same time, he has worked for 30 years to rip up the Voting Rights Act to protect black and brown US citizens.  Join Court Accountability Action's Supreme Court roundtable for more. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 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

This week we bring you an episode from Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams. Stacey Abrams has committed her career to bold political advocacy and voting rights. In this episode, Stacey opens the show by answering audience questions about the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the Voting Rights Act, and what it means for our democracy. Then she's joined by Jane Fonda, who explains why she's revived the Committee for the First Amendment, a group originally supported by her father in the 1940's. Stacey and Jane also talk about the Trump administration's attacks against Jimmy Kimmel, why the Warner Bros. and Paramount merger is so dangerous, and what Jane has learned after decades of activism, including her actions during the Vietnam War. Catch Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams, every Tuesday, on YouTube or wherever you listen to podcasts. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com.

Today, we bring you an episode from Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams. Stacey Abrams has committed her career to bold political advocacy and voting rights. In this episode, Stacey opens the show by answering audience questions about the Supreme Court's recent Voting Rights Act ruling and what it means for our democracy. Then she's joined by Jane Fonda, who explains why she's revived the Committee for the First Amendment, a group originally supported by her father in the 1940's. Stacey and Jane also discuss the Trump administration's attacks on Jimmy Kimmel, why the Warner Bros.-Paramount merger is so dangerous, and what Jane has learned after decades of activism, including her actions during the Vietnam War. Catch Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams, every Tuesday, on YouTube or wherever you listen to podcasts.Learn & Do More Be Curious: To learn more about Jane Fonda's extraordinary history of art and activism, check out the documentary Jane Fonda in Five Acts from HBO.   Solve Problems: You can get involved in the fight against the consequences of the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the Voting Rights Act. Check out the Louisiana-based organization Power Coalition for Equity and Justice at powercoalition.org to learn about volunteer opportunities. The organization Civic Tennessee at https://www.mobilize.us/civictn/ also has volunteer opportunities available. Do Good: The ACLU continues to be a powerful resource in its fight for Free Speech. Visit ACLU.org and check out their campaigns in support of free speech and expression.

For the final episode of The Al Franken Podcast, we're joined one last time by our good friend Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor at Slate and host of the Amicus podcast! As we await the Supreme Court's remaining decisions, we turn to Dahlia to recap a bleak judicial term, including the decisions to gut the Voting Rights Act, strip immigrants of their Temporary Protected Status, and expel transgender servicemembers from the military.Dahlia and Al look past the mainstream media's narrative of a "moderate" bench to reveal an institution deeply aligned with MAGA's political playbook that continues to make way for an imperial presidency. On a more hopeful note, Dahlia offers a blueprint for how regular citizens can find their lane and fight back from the ground up. Dahlia issues a call for Americans to move past "learned helplessness" to dismantle the cult of the Court and return constitutional power to the people.LISTEN to Dahlia's podcast, Amicus:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/amicus-with-dahlia-lithwick-law-justice-and-the-courts/id928790786READ Dahlia in Slate Magazine: https://slate.com/author/dahlia-lithwick

America is watching Black political power come under attack in real time—but this story didn't start with today's headlines. In this urgent conversation, Amanda sits down with Tennessee Representative Justin J. Pearson to unpack the centuries-old playbook of minority rule: how powerful elites divide us, redraw the maps, and rig the system to hold onto power. Amanda traces the hidden history—from Reconstruction to today's gerrymandering battles—to reveal why Black political power has long been the greatest threat to oligarchy. Then, Representative Justin J. Pearson shares what he's witnessing on the ground in Tennessee, where attacks on Black representation are reshaping democracy in real time. We explore how communities can organize, build power, and fight back—and why hope remains a discipline, even now. - Why attacks on Black political power are really about protecting elite minority rule- How racialized redistricting is reshaping the South and the upcoming midterms  - Why the Voting Rights Act became a target—and what's at stake now - Why multiracial coalitions have always terrified those in power- What Rep. Pearson says ordinary people can do right now to fight back To support Representative Pearson, go to: https://www.votejustinj.com/ About Rep. Pearson:  Representative Justin J. Pearson is a Tennessee state legislator, community organizer, environmental justice advocate, and candidate for Tennessee's 9th Congressional District. A lifelong Memphian, Pearson first gained prominence organizing grassroots campaigns that took on some of the most powerful corporate interests in the country. He helped lead the successful fight to stop the Byhalia Pipeline, protecting the drinking water of more than a million residents, and has organized campaigns to challenge environmental pollution, corporate exploitation, and policies that harm working families. His advocacy has included efforts to stop unfair utility contracts, hold polluters accountable, and push for stronger protections for Memphis's air, water, and soil. In 2023, Pearson became a national voice for democracy and gun safety as one of the "Tennessee Three," after being expelled from the Tennessee House by the GOP supermajority for participating in a protest calling for action following the Covenant School shooting. He was later reinstated and returned to office, Today, Pearson continues to advocate for voting rights, environmental justice, economic fairness, and democratic participation. He is currently running for Congress in Tennessee's 9th District, where he has been a leading voice against racial gerrymandering and efforts to dilute Black political power. Follow We Can Do Hard Things on:  Instagram — ⁠https://www.instagram.com/wecandohardthings⁠