Podcasts about voting rights act

8.6.2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Bomb Threat at TX Dem Hotel, Amb. Young on Voting Rights, Brain Eating Amoeba Death, July Jobs Slump Texas Democrats fighting back against GOP redistricting plans just got hit with a bomb threat at their hotel in Illinois. We've got Representatives Bowers and Reynolds joining us to break it all down and trust, they're not backing down. Also 60 years since the Voting Rights Act was signed into law. Civil rights icon Ambassador Andrew Young is here to reflect on the legacy of that moment and what's still at stake today. A tragic story out of South Carolina, a young boy dies after swimming in a lake, exposed to a rare brain-eating amoeba. His family joins us with a powerful message every parent needs to hear. The July jobs report just dropped and it's not pretty. Hiring is cooling off, and that could hit Black workers the hardest. Morgan Harper is here to explain what's really going on and how to stay ahead of the curve. #BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (https://bit.ly/3VDPKjs (https://bit.ly/3ZQzHl0) related to this offering before investing. Download the Black Star Network app at http://www.blackstarnetwork.com! We're on iOS, AppleTV, Android, AndroidTV, Roku, FireTV, XBox 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.

The Voting Rights Act turns 60 today. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement, with the goal of ensuring that Black Americans could actually exercise their constitutional right to vote. But the landmark legislation — or at least what's left of it — is facing new challenges. Roughly a decade ago, the Supreme Court gutted one of its key provisions. And late last week, the justices signaled they could be ready to strike a second major blow to the law. It all comes amid an increasingly ugly redistricting fight that's pitting red states against blue states ahead of next year's midterms. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, joins us to talk about the latest threats to the Voting Rights Act, and why decades later we're still talking about decades after its passage.And in headlines: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly weighing a full occupation of Gaza, President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a task force on the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, and Rwanda became the third African nation to agree to take in U.S. deportees.Show Notes:Check out Rick's blog – https://electionlawblog.org/Call Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

USA TODAY Domestic Security Correspondent Josh Meyer breaks down subpoenas issued by Republicans on the House Oversight Committee in their probe of the Jeffrey Epstein case.President Donald Trump says 2028 Olympic athletes will be tested to prevent transgender competitors in women's sports.USA TODAY National Correspondent Deborah Barfield Berry takes a look back at the Voting Rights Act on its 60th anniversary, and why some worry the law's protections are now at risk.A new Coast Guard report reveals who and what to blame for the 2023 Titan submersible implosion.In this month's edition of Kind Time, we hear about a group that reunites Texas flood victims with lost stuffed toys. Please let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@usatoday.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wednesday marks the anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, the law that ended the era of Jim Crow voting laws that blocked Black Americans from exercising their right to cast a ballot. But 60 years later, there’s renewed effort to give parties more control over the process by giving politicians more ability to pick their voters. William Brangham discussed more with Tony Plohetski and Rick Hasen. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Jason Fraley marks the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act being signed into law on August 6, 1965. It's the perfect day to bring back his 2018 conversation with Emmy-nominated filmmaker Micah Fink when he was crowd-funding for his civil rights documentary “The Power of Protest” where actor Danny Glover chimed in as an official adviser to the film.  (Theme Music: Scott Buckley's "Clarion")

Associate Professor and Founding Director of The Race, Politics, and Policy Center at George Mason University, Dr Michael K. Fauntroy talks about Trump's attack on diversity and Black leadership at George Mason University and the Voting Rights Act at 60 years old. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tavis-smiley--6286410/support.

50 Anniversary Voters Right Act, Chicago Tribune, Slate, NY TimesAugust 6th, 1965 the Voting Rights Act was Signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson., C.T. Vivian, a prominent figure in the Civil Rights Movement, was violently attacked by Sheriff Jim Clark while attempting to escort a group of African Americans to register to vote. Steve Fiffer is a New York Times Bestselling Author. His Book is "It's in The Action": Memories of a Nonviolent Warrior, Rev C.T. Vivian's Memoir.Reverend Vivian was a Major Force in the Fight for Civil Rights & Voters Rights in the Twentieth Century till he Passed July 17th, 2020.Regardless of Social Status, Party Affiliation or Belief, Race: Libertarian, Democrat, Progressive or Republican or Other, All Americans Should Have the Right to Vote!Senator Barack Obama, speaking at Selma's Brown Chapel on the March 2007, anniversary of the 1965 Selma to Montgomery marches, recognized Vivian in his opening remarks in the words of Martin L. King Jr. as "the greatest preacher to ever live."Studying for the ministry at American Baptist Theological Seminary (now called American Baptist College) in Nashville, Tennessee, in 1959, Vivian met James Lawson, who was teaching Mohandas Gandhi's nonviolent direct action strategy to the Nashville Student Movement. Soon Lawson's students, including Diane Nash, Bernard Lafayette, James Bevel, John Lewis and others from American Baptist, Fisk University and Tennessee State University, organized a systematic nonviolent sit-in campaign at local lunch counters.Vivian helped found the Nashville Christian Leadership Conference, and helped organize the first sit-ins in Nashville in 1960 and the first civil rights march in 1961. In 1961, Vivian participated in Freedom Rides. He worked alongside Martin Luther King Jr. as the national director of affiliates for the SCLC. During the summer following the Selma Voting Rights Movement, Vivian is perhaps best known for, Vivian challenged Sheriff Jim Clark on the steps of the courthouse in Selma, Alabama, in 1965 during a drive to promote Black people to register to vote."You can turn your back on me, but you cannot turn your back upon the idea of justice," Vivian said to Clark as reporters recorded the interaction. "You can turn your back now and you can keep the club in your hand, but you cannot beat down justice. And we will register to vote, because as citizens of these United States we have the right to do it."Vivian conceived and directed an educational program, Vision, and put 702 Alabama students in college with scholarships (this program later became Upward Bound). His 1970 Black Power and the American Myth was the first book on the Civil Rights Movement by a member of Martin Luther King's staff.On August 8, 2013, President Barack Obama named Vivian as a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.Steve's own Memoir is "Three Quarters, Two Dimes, and a Nickel". His work has appeared in Chicago Tribune. & Slate. He's also a Guggenheim Fellow© 2025 All Rights Reserved© 2025 Building Abundant Success!!Join Me on ~ iHeart Media @ https://tinyurl.com/iHeartBASSpot Me on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/yxuy23baAmazon Music ~ https://tinyurl.com/AmzBASAudacy:  https://tinyurl.com/BASAud

Sixty years ago, Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law one of the most transformative bills in United States history - the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Michael Li joins Lindsay Langholz to take stock of the VRA's impact on American democracy, the real wins pro-democracy advocates are still able to achieve in spite of an increasingly hostile Supreme Court, and what the future holds for this critical law.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Lindsay Langholz, Senior Director of Policy and Program, ACSGuest: Michael Li, Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for JusticeLink: Growing Racial Disparities in Voter Turnout, 2008–2022, Brennan Center for JusticeGuest: A New Cycle of Texas Gerrymandering: Your Questions Answered, Bolts MagazineGuest: The Supreme Court Just Signaled Something Deeply Disturbing About the Next Term, by Rick HasenGuest: The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Fact Sheet, The Brennan Center for JusticeVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

Public intellectual, professor and author Dr. Cornel West shares his thoughts about the upcoming 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act and why we must know the truth, regardless of attempts to delete history.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tavis-smiley--6286410/support.

At the urging of President Trump, the Texas legislature has launched a mid‑decade redistricting effort aimed at securing additional Republican seats in Congress. If successful, this effort could have far‑reaching implications for representation and governance—and spur other states to try the same. In this episode of Stanford Legal, two of Stanford Law School's—and the nation's—leading election law experts sit down to untangle the legal and political stakes of today's redistricting wars. In their wide‑ranging discussion, Professors Pamela Karlan and Nathaniel Persily shed light on Texas's push to add five new Republican‑leaning seats, the Supreme Court's recent decision to re‑argue Louisiana v. Callais—a move that could reshape how the Voting Rights Act is applied—and the broader battles over race, representation, and the future of redistricting in America.Links:Nate Persily >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00) Voting Rights and Gerrymandering (05:31)The Legal Landscape of Redistricting(15:01) The Impact of Partisan Gerrymandering (25:31) The Evolving Role of the Judiciary (35:01) Future Implications for the Voting Rights Act 

SCOTUS Takes on Racist Gerrymandering in Louisiana v. Calais! Will Race-Based Politics Get the Boot? I dive into the explosive Supreme Court case that could reshape American politics! Louisiana's outrageous gerrymandering to create a black-only congressional district is under fire, pitting the U.S. Constitution's demand for racial equality against the Voting Rights Act of 1965's controversial race-based mandates. Is this the end of racist congressional redistricting? We'll unpack the high-stakes battle: Can the government keep dividing us by skin color, or will the Constitution prevail? This case could dismantle decades of discriminatory policies, following SCOTUS's recent smackdown of affirmative action in colleges. If you're tired of race-based politics oppressing any American, this is the show you CAN'T miss!  The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

Today's show is brought to you by these great sponsors: Boll & Branch The key to wellness starts with a good night's sleep. Making your night's sleep better starts with quality sheets. Boll & Branch's sheets start unbelievably soft and get softer over time. Boll & Branch sheets are made with the finest 100% organic cotton in a soft, breathable, durable weave. If you're looking for sheets that last, feel amazing, and help you sleep better, Boll & Branch is where it's at. Feel the difference an extraordinary night's sleep can make with Boll & Branch. Just head to https://www.bollandbranch.com/SPICER for 15% OFF and FREE SHIPPING. Beam Are you tossing and turning at night and running on fumes during the day? If so, then you are missing out on the most important part of your wellness, sleep. If you want to wake up refreshed, inspired and ready to take on the day then you have to try Beam's Dream powder. This best-selling blend of Reishi, Magnesium, L-Theanine, Apigenin and Melatonin will help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed. So if you're ready for the best night of sleep you ever had just head to https://shopbeam.com/SPICER to receive 40% off your order. Delta Rescue Delta Rescue is one the largest no-kill animal sanctuaries. Leo Grillo is on a mission to help all abandoned, malnourished, hurt or suffering animals. He relies solely on contributions from people like you and me. If you want to help Leo to continue his mission of running one of the best care-for-life animal sanctuaries in the country please visit Delta Rescue at: https://deltarescue.org/ Republicans efforts to redistrict in Texas has exposed a voting rights act violation. The Trump Department of Justice has discovered that certain districts in Texas were drawn up to create a racial drawn district under an outdated law. This has helped Democrats to gerrymander districts in their favor and the Supreme Court will weigh in on a similar case in Louisiana that is also in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Democrats have used this to create the effect that elected officials need to look like the people they represent to represent them accurately. The DOJ is cleaning out voter rolls, purging duplicates and non citizens. After 44 years the DOJ has removed race-based hiring practices within the federal government, applicants will be judged on merit and competence standards, allowing the federal government to hire the top talent in our nation. Featuring: Harmeet Dhillon Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division https://www.justice.gov/crt/staff-profile/assistant-attorney-general Read my article on Senate confirmations here: https://www.seanspicer.com/p/senators-on-summer-break If you missed my rant on Sydney Sweeney, click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4yTtuQk3h0 ------------------------------------------------------------- 1️⃣ Subscribe and ring the bell for new videos: https://youtube.com/seanmspicer?sub_confirmation=1 2️⃣ Become a part of The Sean Spicer Show community: https://www.seanspicer.com/ 3️⃣ Listen to the full audio show on all platforms: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-sean-spicer-show/id1701280578 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/32od2cKHBAjhMBd9XntcUd iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-sean-spicer-show-120471641/ 4️⃣ Stay in touch with Sean on social media: Facebook: https://facebook.com/seanmspicer Twitter: https://twitter.com/seanspicer Instagram: https://instagram.com/seanmspicer/ 5️⃣ Follow The Sean Spicer Show on social media: Facebook: https://facebook.com/seanspicershow Twitter: https://twitter.com/seanspicershow Instagram: https://instagram.com/seanspicershow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Wisconsin is reporting the first cases of Measles and don't worry, our leaders are here to "help" as Wisconsin lawmakers are making it easier to refuse vaccines, because...freedom! Then, the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics was fired this weekend, because she did her job, but we find out "rigging" the job numbers wasn't in her job description. Then, Civic Media's News Director Chali Pittman joins us to talk about all the news we may have missed including the installation of Justice Susan Crawford to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, The Voting Rights Act turns 60 and The Corporation For Public Broadcasting is shutting down. Civic Media is against this decision and has stated so in the following press release. As always, thank you for listening, texting and calling, we couldn't do this without you! Don't forget to download the free Civic Media app and take us wherever you are in the world! Matenaer On Air is a part of the Civic Media radio network and airs weekday mornings from 9-11 across the state. Subscribe to the podcast to be sure not to miss out on a single episode! You can also rate us on your podcast distribution center of choice. It goes a long way! Guest: Chali Pittman

Season 5 of WABE’s Peabody Award-winning podcast “Buried Truths” launches on August 26th. This season delves into the life of Clarence Horatious Pickett. The preacher and advertising salesman was beaten by police in December 1957, and died days later after a white doctor dismissed his injuries. For a special preview of the series, “Buried Truths” host Hank Klibanoff talks with Rose Scott about what listeners can expect for the upcoming season, how cases are selected to be featured on the podcast and more about Clarence Horatious Pickett’s case. Plus, this week marks the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. The landmark legislation signed into law on August 6th, 1965, aimed to end racial discrimination in voting and ensure that all Americans have equal access to the ballot. Fast forward to now, some argue that the legislation has been gutted and or weakened through challenges upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. As part of “Closer Look’s” week-long series, examining implications of the Voting Rights Act, host Rose Scott talks with Lauren Groh-Wargo, chief executive officer of Fair Fight, and Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, who serves as the general counsel for the organization. They talked about Fair Fight’s mission and why they believe the fight for constitutional rights is long-term and ongoing, not limited to one case.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special Daily Special, River City Hash Mondays is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, the Supreme Court weighs the nuclear option on the Voting Rights Act about a week before the sixty year anniversary of the law.Then, on the rest of the menu, the Trump administration told NASA to draw up plans to end at least two satellite missions that scientists and farmers rely on that measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the Oregon Jewish Museum was vandalized with painted swastikas; and, Trump told Schumer to “go to hell.”After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where a lawyer says he's not been allowed to see the five immigrants secretly deported last week by the US to solitary confinement in a prison in Eswatini; and, Brazil's Supreme Court is standing firm on the Bolsonaro trial despite foreign pressure coming mostly from Trump.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!"I was never a spy. I was with the OSS organization. We had a number of women, but we were all office help." -- Julia ChildBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

Fox News host and one of President Trump's close allies, Jeanine Pirro, was confirmed by the Senate Saturday night as U.S. Attorney for Washington, DC. Former Special Counsel and Special Assistant to President Obama, Norm Eisen, and Political Strategist Rina Shah join The Weekend to discuss how Pirro has been known for going after the Department of Justice and pushing baseless conspiracy theories. Plus, Trump's war on facts. Trump's firing of the Labor Statistics Chief raises alarms about the future of government data after he claimed the newest jobs numbers were “rigged.”

When Governor Brian Kemp announced he would not run for U.S. Senate next year, he made it clear he didn’t want Georgia Republicans to fight in a messy primary. But his decision to bow out of the race may have opened the floodgates, as several Republicans with Senate aspirations have announced their candidacies. On this week’s episode of “Plugged In,” hosts Sam Gringlas and Rahul Bali catch up on the fast-moving Republican primary to challenge Democratic U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff in 2026. Plus, Democrats mark the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by reintroducing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, we discuss the future of MARTA and we take a look at what’s next for the push to legalize gambling in Georgia.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Our weekly gathering happens while the final hearing on the Donald Trump-ordered redistricting of Texas for the sole purpose of protecting him from losing the GOP majority in the U.S. House next year - widely expected to happen without this kind of drastic measure - is even now ongoing at the Capitol. We sent Digital Associate Haley Smith into the fray to see what's what - she reports live from the scene, complete with interviews including Texas Democratic Party Chair Kendall Scudder, whose hat choices in headwear lately are damn straight on point.As we approach the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act passed under President and Texas Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson, Progress Texas invites YOU to help us shine a spotlight on the truth—from our coalition work introducing the Barbara Jordan Texas Voting Rights Act in the 89th Legislative Session, to a live podcast taping with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in Dallas on where voting rights stand today, to rapid response coverage of stop the steal rallies (attended by thousands and digitally brought to hundreds of thousands), to shaping the narrative in legacy media. Your donation is key to keeping us in this fight, and every penny helps - thank you. Join us here: https://act.progresstexas.org/a/60th_vraThanks for listening! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://progresstexas.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for July 31, 2025Can Individuals or Advocacy Groups Sue in Voting Rights Cases?  The Magic 8th Circuit Ball Says ‘No'.The federal 8th Circuit Court appears intent to block redistricting and voting rights cases by individuals and advocacy groups.  July 29th, the 8th Circuit issued another finding that individuals and groups can't sue using the Voting Rights Act.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:American Democracy Minute - (2023) Radical Federal Court of Appeals Ruling Deals Another Blow to Voters, Democracy Groups and the Voting Rights Act American Democracy Minute - Eighth Circuit ‘Private Right of Action' Ruling Temporarily Halted by Justice Kavanaugh in Case by North Dakota Tribal NationsBrennan Center for Justice - The Newest Attack on the Voting Rights ActArkansas Advocate - US appeals court overturns ruling that said Arkansas law violated voting rights8th Circuit Court of Appeals (via Democracy Docket)  - Arkansas United; L. Mireya Reith v. ArkansasGroups Taking Action:Arkansas United, Legal Defense Fund, ACLU, Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP, Arkansas Public Policy PanelRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Arkansas #PrivateRightofAction #VotingRights #VRA

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

✦ 61 years ago, racial minorities had no legally protected right to vote. A new documentary film “Harmony of Freedom” reminds us of this unsettling fact while celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, through the power of music. WABE has partnered with Georgia State student conductor and filmmaker Jackson Allred to air “Harmony of Freedom” on August 4th. The film showcases orchestras from all over the state of Georgia performing composer Margaret Bonds’ “Montgomery Variations.” City Lights Collective co-host Kim Drobes recently sat down with Jackson Allred to learn more. ✦ Atlanta Pride, Georgia's oldest nonprofit organization serving our city’s local LGBTQ+ community, turns 55 this year. To celebrate, they’ve partnered with Out on Film and are showcasing queer resistance in the South - through a film screening and community summit. WABE arts reporter Summer Evans shares more. ✦ For nearly three decades, Dad's Garage has been become synonymous with improv comedy in Atlanta. And as their fans have put down roots and grown families here in Atlanta, so to has Dad's expanded their offerings to appeal to the next generation of comedy lovers. Performing Saturday matinee shows, Wowie Zowie is a playful and engaging experience for audiences of all ages. Kids get to let loose and see their creative ideas come to life on stage, while parents can enjoy an afternoon out of the house without suffering the oppressive summer heat. City Lights Engineer Matt McWilliams recently caught up with Dad's Garage ensemble player Avery Sharpe-Steele after a sold-out Wowie Zowie show. ✦ . You may be familiar with Toni Morrison, the Pulitzer and Nobel Prize-winning author of novels “Beloved,” “The Bluest Eye,” and more. But did you know that Morrison was also one of the first Black editors for a major publishing company? A new book, “Toni at Random,” examines Morrison’s years as an editor at Random House and the book’s author, Dana Williams, will celebrate her new release tomorrow, with a discussion at Atlanta’s Auburn Avenue Research Library. City Lights Collective member Alison Law recently caught up with Willams to talk about “Toni at Random” ahead of tomorrow’s event. ✦ City Lights Collective members Jasmine Hentschel and EC Flamming, the creatives behind Atlanta’s visual art print magazine, “GULCH”, want you to get out and engage with the city’s art scene. Each week they spotlight five standout happenings, and today their mix includes: prints galore at the Black Art in America Print Fair, love and care in a group show at the historical Haugabrooks Gallery on Auburn Avenue, and thoughtful textile explorations at Gallery Chimera.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Civil rights are under attack. The Supreme Court seems to have its sights set on the Voting Rights Act. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is taking every issue to the court knowing that it will never have to face accountability there. And with states like Texas considering unpopular redistricting plans, the administration may never face it at the ballot box either. Put more bluntly, many of our elected officials are operating with a perceived immunity from accountability of any sort. This week Dahlia spoke about the deleterious effects of these actions on voting rights with Maya Wiley, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. They discuss the damage done to our civil rights by the current Department of Justice, and what we can learn about accountability from recent developments in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Civil rights are under attack. The Supreme Court seems to have its sights set on the Voting Rights Act. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is taking every issue to the court knowing that it will never have to face accountability there. And with states like Texas considering unpopular redistricting plans, the administration may never face it at the ballot box either. Put more bluntly, many of our elected officials are operating with a perceived immunity from accountability of any sort. This week Dahlia spoke about the deleterious effects of these actions on voting rights with Maya Wiley, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. They discuss the damage done to our civil rights by the current Department of Justice, and what we can learn about accountability from recent developments in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Civil rights are under attack. The Supreme Court seems to have its sights set on the Voting Rights Act. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is taking every issue to the court knowing that it will never have to face accountability there. And with states like Texas considering unpopular redistricting plans, the administration may never face it at the ballot box either. Put more bluntly, many of our elected officials are operating with a perceived immunity from accountability of any sort. This week Dahlia spoke about the deleterious effects of these actions on voting rights with Maya Wiley, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. They discuss the damage done to our civil rights by the current Department of Justice, and what we can learn about accountability from recent developments in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rob McKenna on the US Supreme Court case that could dismantle the Voting Rights Act // Gary Horcher in Boise on the sentencing hearing of Bryan Kohberger // Aaron Navarro at the White House with a report on the latest Trump reaction to Jeffrey Epstein rumours // Paul Holden on the delicate art of glass blowing at the boat house

A high-stakes case from North Dakota could change who's allowed to challenge unfair voting laws. In this episode, we unpack how the Supreme Court's next move may impact the Voting Rights Act-and your ability to protect your vote.Learn what's at stake, what's next, and what you can do to fight back.More at votevoiced.com• Support us: actblue.com/donate/vote-voiced/1 Like, follow, and subscribe to the Vote Voiced Podcast. Listen to us on all platforms.#VotingRights #VoteVoiced#SCOTUS #VRA #NorthDakota #MakeVotingYourLifestyle#ProtectTheVote#2025Elections

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special daily special, Tarrytown Chowder Tuesday is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, the MAGA SCOTUS looks dead set on gutting the Voting Rights Act again, this time with a North Dakota case especially teed up to be issued from the MAGA Shadow Docket.Then, on the rest of the menu, twenty-four states sued the Trump administration to unfreeze more than $6 billion in education grants; the Trump administration says it won't publish major climate change reports on the NASA website as promised; and, for the first time in over seventy-five years, Native American teens were able to kayak the whole length of the Klamath River in celebration of the removal of four decayed dams and the return of long-lost salmon.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where turncoat Daniel Martindale, the US citizen who helped the Kremlin target and kill thousands of Ukrainian troops while he resided in the embattled country, has been granted Russian citizenship as “a sign of respect and a sign of gratitude for what Daniel has done;” and, an Irish tourist who overstayed his visa by three days because he was sick in the hospital, says "nobody is safe” after being held by ICE for over a hundred days in squalid and brutal conditions.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!“As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.” -- Ernest Hemingway "A Moveable Feast"Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for June 13, 2025Apparent Racial Gerrymandering in Tarrant County, TX Draws Condemnation and a VRA Lawsuit.  The County's Reply?  It's OK. It was for Political Reasons.Tarrant County, Texas county commissioners approved a new county redistricting map June 3rd diluting the votes of Black and Hispanic voters, but commissioners claim the gerrymandering was for “political”, not racial reasons.  The map likely eliminates a majority minority district, and has drawn widespread condemnation and a Voting Rights Act lawsuit.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:Texas Tribune - (2021) Historically red Tarrant County diversified in the last decade. Now Republicans are trying to divide up its voters of color.Tarrant County - Tarrant County Redistricting 2025Fort Worth Telegram - Are Tarrant's proposed redistricting maps racial gerrymanders? We asked expertsUCLA Voting Rights Project - Tarrant County AnalysisKDFW Fox 4 News - SMU researcher says proposed Tarrant County redistricting 'diminishes' voting powerU.S. District Court (via Democracy Docket) - Complaint in Jackson v. Tarrant CountyCBS News Texas -  Tarrant County citizens file lawsuit against new redistricting mapKERA - (Update) Tarrant County approves $250K contract with law firm to fight racial gerrymandering lawsuit Groups Taking Action:Common Cause TX,  Lone Star ProjectRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Texas #TarrantCounty #RacialGerrymandering #FairMaps #VRA

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

This week, I'm reading Chapter 23, the final chapter of the Peter David penned movie novelization of the 1991 Rocketeer film.  Ironically, this episode will come out right after the United States' birthday (7/4/1776), at a time when there is a lot of turmoil in the country.  It's not the first time, nor will it be the last, I suspect.  I won't get into the wasteland of politics, but since this episode is on the Rocketeer, I thought it would be an interesting time to reflect on how the character fits some American ideals. Speaking of which - ideals ... the country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal and all deserve some basic rights.  Was this true in 1776?  Let's be frank (it's an American ideal).  No.  Not even close. It might have been true if you were a free white man but was probably not anywhere close to being true if you were a woman, child, slave, indentured servant, or a race other Caucasian.  It took a long time for other groups to finally catch up.  US women finally achieved the right to vote in national elections in 1920 (19th amendment to the US Constitution).  Though slavery was officially abolished after the US Civil War in 1865, black men were were not granted the right to vote in federal elections until 1870 (the 15th amendment to the US Constitution), and it was not until the 1950s and 60s and beyond that segregation practices were ended (Jim Crow laws ended on a national level in 1964, but in many cases, still exist in other, less overt forms depending on the location).  It was not until 1967 that interracial marriage was allowed on a federal level (see the 1967 US Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia).  Although the United States was founded by immigrants, the Chinese exclusion act, passed in 1882, was the first significant law that restricted the flow of immigrants into the US, targeting Chinese laborers.  While there were amendments to the law in 1943, there were still quotas and other restrictions to abide by.  It was not until 2012 (!) that the Chinese exclusion act was official condemned by Congress.  Although Native Americans were the first people on this land, they were not granted access to US citizenship until 1924 (Indian Citizenship Act), and it was not until 1965 that they were granted the federal right to vote (Voting Rights Act of 1965), though US Native Americans still are often unable to vote for various reasons to this day.  Same sex marriage was not legally allowed on federal level until 2015 (see the US Supreme Court decision of Obergefell v. Hodges). These are just a few examples of inequality in the face of a federal Constitution claiming basic rights for all.  I write all this not to condemn all the ways in which we as a country fail to live up to our ideals but rather to show that as any society, especially one made up by immigrants from all over the world, is going to have its problems and will require a lot of work and constant maintenance to work in any somewhat functional way.  The US is basically a nearly 250 year old hotel with guests constantly coming and going, clogging the sinks and toilets, running down the hot water, making messes, and yelling in the hallway.  Even in low season times, there is still plenty of maintenance to do since things break.  Nothing lasts forever.   How does all this relate to the Rocketeer?  Read more at https://13thhr.wordpress.com/2025/07/07/the-thirteenth-hour-podcast-517-and-like-a-hood-ornament-81-reading-the-conclusion-of-the-rocketeer-movie-novelization-chapter-23/∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞Once Upon a Dream, the second Thirteenth Hour soundtrack, is now out in digital form on services such as Bandcamp, Spotify, and YouTube Music. -Check out the pixelart music videos that are out so far from the album:-->Logan's Sunrise Workout: www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7SM1RgsLiM-->Forward: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9VgILr1TDc-->Nightsky Stargazing: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S0p3jKRTBo-->Aurora's Rainy Day Mix: https://youtu.be/zwqPmypBysk

US REP JAMIE RASKIN & THE ATTACK ON US DEMOCRACY & ECOLOGY We begin GREEP Zoom #229 with citations for  “The Choreography of War” by our Poet Laureate MIMI GERMAN, whose latest poem is compacted into a brilliant three lines. Green Party Presidential nominee HOWIE HAWKINS discusses the nitty-gritties of Ranked Choice Voting & instant runoff. The great MARIANNE WILLIAMSON gives us a brief hello & a promise to come visit us again soon. Beyond Nuclear's KEVIN KAMPS reminds us about how powerful is the rise of renewables worldwide along with the demise of nuke power. Co-host MIKE HERSH gives us a stellar introduction for US REP JAMIE RASKIN. Rep. Raskin provides a brief excursion into the dire damage being done to our electoral system through the widespread assault on the Voting Rights Act, emphasizing the powerful impact of the No Kings Day marches.. The great RAY MCCLENDON of the Georgia-based Communities United for Justice connects with Rep. Raskin, sharing concerns about the mass disenfranchisement being imposed on the national electorate. In response Rep. Raskin warns of the anti-democracy provisions of the SAVE Act, aiming to keep millions of women from voting. Progressive Democrats of America's great Executive Director ALAN MINSKY emphasizes that Progressive activists are the true patriots. Rep. Raskin argues that the Founders' legacies are being assaulted because of their timeless commitment to democracy. A request for help comes from MAYOR HEIDE LAMPERT of Waldport, Oregon, who proclaims herself to be a Warrior for Democracy in the face of a fascist assault. Howie Hawkins & Kevin Kamps chime in with demands for real democracy & an end to subsidies for nuke power. Agricultural activist legend RUDY ARREDONDO warns of the dismemberment of the US Department of Agriculture & the breaking federal commitments to American farming. Rep. Raskin supports Rudy by underscoring the damage being done by ICE raids to the agricultural workers and the farms that depend on them. Green activist HEIDI VERTHALLER plugs for renewables and asks Jamie if he will run for president, to which Rep. Raskin answers in the affirmative. We hear from DONALD SMITH about a book called UNCHECKED that blames Nancy Pelosi for the failure of the impeachments of Trump. LA's JOHN SEELEY supports rank choice voting, but warns against it in the final NYC election. Frequent commentator NICOLE UNG warns that Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook et. al. are unifying for more nuke power. From MYLA RESON we hear of New York Lieutenant Governor Antonio DelGado, who opposes nuke power. Minnesotan HEDY TRIPP calls in from Malaysia to wonder about the threat to have NY Mayoral candidate Mamdani deported. Engineer STEVE CARUSO warns that the threat to de-naturalize would-be Mayor  Mamdani is being used nationwide. Ohio eco-activist VINA COLLEY illuminates the push for Small Modular Reactors' horrendous waste & Trump's sinister mis-use of radiation victims while slashing their compensation. Phone activist NINA SINGER urges everyone to call their Senators about the Big Bill and the destruction of the Everglades. No Nukes legend KARL GROSSMAN talks about the importance of meeting with a NY Governor candidate who's against nuke power. An emphasis for “boots on the ground comes from HOWIE DUIT. KPFK Board Chair TATANKA BRICCA emphasizes the long history of farmworker activism in CA... and its forever impact.  Frequent GREEPster DONALD SMITH introduces us to the work on nuke waste at Hanford coming from Jerry Politt, who we'll track down…. But in honor of Independence weekend, we will not meet on July 7….so please celebrate & work for at least two more centuries of American democracy.     

Welcome to this educational and explosive, brand-new edition of Light ‘Em Up!Share us with a friend!  We are now being actively downloaded in 131 countries!We continue our intense focus on how the Rule of law and democracy are being endangered.Democracy hangs in the balance and is under constant daily attack — threatened on every front.What better example than the current Department of Justice (DOJ) ordering its civil rights division to halt the majority of its functions, including a freeze on pursuing any:—      new cases—     indictments or—     consent decree settlements.For civil rights this is a crisis!  It has only been 59 years since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed. This was a landmark piece of legislation that helped to dismantle many discriminatory barriers and enforce the voting rights of African Americans.  Imagine having that office shut down during the LBJ Administration!  The KKK would have won!In a democracy, the majority can wield immense power, potentially leading to the suppression of dissenting voices and the marginalization of minority groups.You had better begin to ask yourself the tough question:Are you okay with your civil rights being suspended until 2028 and maybe beyond?White people, too, can have their civil rights violated.  Are you ready for that?Will the police be able to simply continue to brutalize people and get away with it as the Louisiana State Police did on May 10th, 2019, with Ronald Greene?Greene was an unarmed 49-year-old black man who, on a dark night in Monroe, Louisiana, 6 members of the LSP “goon squad” tazed, punched, kicked, pepper sprayed, and dragged face down on the concrete, only to place him in a chokehold until he died.Good night and good luck! Under this current Trump administration your civil rights will be “enforced” like his were.We are staring in the face of “soft despotism" or "soft tyranny".This occurs when a powerful, centralized state, while not overtly oppressive, gradually takes over the responsibilities and decision-making of individuals and communities.The state becomes like a benevolent but overbearing parent, providing for citizens' needs and ensuring their well-being, but in doing so, it diminishes their capacity for independent thought and action.  We've arrived there, stop fooling yourself otherwise.We'll discuss and analyze the current push from the ultra-conservative-talk-show host, Ben Shapiro to petition the adjudicated felon Donald Trump to federally pardon Derek Chauvin, the felon, former police officer — who drove his knee into the neck of George Floyd for more than 9 minutes, hastening his death on May 25th, 2020.We have passed the 5-year mark of this deadly encounter on the streets in Minneapolis, MN and tell me, what has changed for the better?Shapiro clearly sees this as an opportunity to continue to support his white, racist agenda as it gins up his base of white nationalist followers.  MAGA-folk and beyond!We ask out loud:Could a president do that?What would it matter, since Chauvin also is in prison on state charges?And we'll wrap things up looking at what happens to democracy when police regularly brutalize its citizens as the “politics of policing” has changed drastically since George Floyd's' death.The truth is under attack!  The truth is worth defending!Tune in for all of the explosive details.Justice comes to those that fight, not those that cry!Without fear or favor we follow the facts and tackle the topics that touch your lives.Follow our sponsors:  Newsly & Feedspot.We want to hear from you!

Leah Litman, author of Lawless: The Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, argues that originalism masks a partisan project, while critics counter that Roe's reversal doesn't require conspiracy. Her pop culture–infused book uses The Barbie Movie, American Psycho, and Arrested Development to advance critiques of the conservative court. Plus, the NYC mayoral debate crammed nine candidates into two chaotic hours, yielding more zingers than substance. And in the Spiel, rather than accept the usual narrative about the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, a look at actual turnout data post-Shelby County v. Holder—which suggests far less than a real-world calamity. Produced by Corey WaraProduction Coordinator Ashley KhanEmail us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com⁠⁠⁠⁠To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe to The Gist: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠GIST INSTAGRAM⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow The Gist List at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Pesca⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The year 1963 was a landmark one for the civil rights movement – and it's the subject of Peniel Joseph's new book Freedom Season. In the book, the University of Texas at Austin professor argues the events of 1963 ushered in what would become a 50-year consensus on racial justice, including the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and transformations to public institutions. In today's episode, Joseph joins Here & Now's Scott Tong for a conversation about the varied voices of the civil rights era – who didn't always agree – including James Baldwin, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King Jr., and John F. Kennedy.To listen to Book of the Day sponsor-free and support NPR's book coverage, sign up for Book of the Day+ at plus.npr.org/bookofthedayLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

On today's episode of Tiers of Scrutiny, Pari and I discuss Louisiana v. Callais, a case that the Supreme Court heard arguments for in late March. After a federal court ordered Louisiana to fix a Voting Rights Act violation, the new map—drawn to empower Black voters—sparked backlash from non-Black plaintiffs claiming racial gerrymandering. When, if ever, is racial gerrymandering a legitimate remedy? What does this mean for the future of the VRA? We discuss these questions and more in this episode. As always, sources below. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/louisiana-v-callais/https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-109https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/335630/20241219161939870_24-109%20Brief-updated.pdfhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/339741/20250121131829124_24-109%2024-110%20Brief%20for%20Appellees.pdf

The hosts discuss how desegregation under Brown was hampered in schools by a policy of “all deliberate speed” where the speed was often zero.  In contrast, and despite the fact that in large portions of the nation education is separate and unequal, the Trump administration has begun an “all speed ahead” policy of eliminating decrees which contained desegregation requirements'.   https://www.axios.com/2025/05/02/doj-decades-old-school-desegregation-louisiana   In this episode of Ellis Conversations, co-host Jamil Ellis and his father, retired federal magistrate Judge Ronald Ellis, reflect on the 71st anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education—not just the 1954 decision, but its overlooked 1955 follow-up. They explore the legal and societal impacts of desegregation mandates, the resistance that followed, and how today's rollback of civil rights enforcement—particularly around school desegregation—echoes familiar patterns. With real-life stories, including Ruby Bridges and Prince Edward County's school closures, the conversation traces decades of policy evolution—from Milliken v. Bradley to Roberts Court rulings that undermine systemic remedies for segregation. The episode also offers generational perspectives on optimism, protest, and the need for youth leadership in safeguarding educational equity.

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

This Day in Legal History:  House of Representatives Passes 19th AmendmentOn this day in legal history, May 21, 1919, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, granting women the right to vote. The amendment stated simply: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." After decades of organizing, lobbying, and protest by suffragists—including Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul—this marked a major legislative victory in the long fight for women's suffrage.The amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1878 but languished for over 40 years before gaining sufficient political traction. The context of World War I played a pivotal role; as women took on new roles in the workforce and public life during the war, their contributions made it politically difficult to deny them voting rights. President Woodrow Wilson, initially lukewarm on the issue, eventually lent his support, which helped sway key votes.Following the House vote on May 21, 1919, the amendment proceeded to the Senate, where it was passed on June 4, 1919. Ratification by the states took just over a year, with Tennessee becoming the decisive 36th state to ratify on August 18, 1920. The 19th Amendment was officially certified on August 26, 1920.This moment was a turning point in constitutional law regarding civil rights and voting equality, setting the stage for later expansions through the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and ongoing debates over voter access and gender equality.Twelve U.S. states, led by Democratic attorneys general from New York, Illinois, and Oregon, are challenging President Donald Trump's recently imposed "Liberation Day" tariffs in federal court. The states argue that Trump misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariffs on imports from countries with which the U.S. runs trade deficits. They claim the law doesn't authorize tariffs and that a trade deficit does not qualify as a national emergency.The case will be heard by a three-judge panel at the Court of International Trade in Manhattan, which also recently heard a similar lawsuit from small businesses. Oregon's Attorney General Dan Rayfield said the tariffs were harming consumers and small businesses, estimating an extra $3,800 per year in costs for the average family. The Justice Department contends that the states' claims are speculative and that only Congress can challenge a president's national emergency declaration under IEEPA.Trump's tariff program began in February with country-specific measures and escalated to a 10% blanket tariff in April, before being partially rolled back. His administration defends the tariffs as necessary for countering unfair trade practices and reviving U.S. manufacturing. Multiple lawsuits—including ones from California, advocacy groups, businesses, and Native American tribes—are challenging the tariff regime.US states mount court challenge to Trump's tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Justice Department is investigating former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, now a leading Democratic candidate for New York City mayor, over Republican allegations that he misled Congress about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic while in office. The inquiry reportedly stems from a referral by a GOP-led House subcommittee, which cited Cuomo's closed-door testimony before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.Cuomo's campaign says it was not notified of the probe and denounced the investigation as politically motivated "lawfare" driven by Trump allies. Critics argue the Justice Department is being used to target political opponents, while Trump and his supporters maintain that prior cases against him were politically biased. Cuomo, who resigned in 2021 following a state attorney general report accusing him of sexual misconduct—which he denies—is the presumed frontrunner in the June 24 Democratic mayoral primary.He is set to face incumbent Eric Adams, now running as an independent after facing and being cleared of federal charges. The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed or commented on the Cuomo probe, and his spokesperson insists the former governor testified truthfully and transparently.US Justice Department investigating former New York governor Cuomo, sources say | ReutersA federal judge in Kentucky dismissed a lawsuit by the U.S. Treasury Department that aimed to cancel a labor contract with IRS workers in Covington. Judge Danny Reeves ruled that the Treasury lacked legal standing to bring the suit and granted summary judgment in favor of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) Chapter 73. This marks a legal defeat for the Trump administration's broader attempt to weaken federal employee union rights through an executive order.The administration had filed similar lawsuits in Kentucky and Texas following Trump's directive that claimed two-thirds of federal employees could be excluded from labor protections under national security grounds. In response, the NTEU filed its own legal challenge in Washington, D.C., where Judge Paul Friedman temporarily blocked the order's implementation. However, a federal appeals court later paused that injunction while the Trump administration appeals.This decision in Kentucky slows momentum for the administration's effort to restrict collective bargaining for federal workers, though related cases continue to play out in other jurisdictions. The NTEU was represented by both in-house and private attorneys, while the Justice Department defended the administration's position.Judge Tosses Treasury's Suit to Cancel Federal Worker Contract 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

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

5.15.2025 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Voting Rights Act dealt major blow, SCOTUS hears birthright citizenship case, New reparations bill A federal court just delivered a gut punch to the Voting Rights Act. If you can't sue to protect your vote... who can? Judith Browne Dianis, the Executive Director of the Advancement Project National Office, will be here to discuss this ruling. The Supreme Court takes on birthright citizenship... Could kids born on U.S. soil lose their claim to being American? Plus, a new reparations bill hits Capitol Hill. Is real action finally on the table? We honor a true trailblazer--former Labor Secretary Alexis Herman--as the nation reflects on her powerful legacy. #BlackStarNetwork partner: Fanbasehttps://www.startengine.com/offering/fanbase This Reg A+ offering is made available through StartEngine Primary, LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. This investment is speculative, illiquid, and involves a high degree of risk, including the possible loss of your entire investment. You should read the Offering Circular (https://bit.ly/3VDPKjD) and Risks (https://bit.ly/3ZQzHl0) related to this offering before investing. Download the Black Star Network app at http://www.blackstarnetwork.com! We're on iOS, AppleTV, Android, AndroidTV, Roku, FireTV, XBox 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.

States consider their own versions of the federal Voting Rights Act, Justice Department attorneys shift their focus from voting rights to voter fraud and state legislatures urge the Supreme Court to reverse its decision legalizing same sex marriage.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we examine sweeping changes in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division under the Trump administration. Reporter Sam Levine joins host Jessica Levinson to discuss how the division, long tasked with enforcing voting rights and other protections, has seen over 70% of its attorneys depart amid a shift in priorities toward the president's agenda. The episode explores what this means for civil rights enforcement, voter protections, and whether former DOJ lawyers can fill the gap by taking their expertise into private practice.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:The Role and Function of the DOJ Civil Rights Division and Voting Section: The conversation starts with an explanation of what the Civil Rights Division within the Department of Justice (DOJ) does. It is tasked with enforcing America's civil rights laws—including the Voting Rights Act—and consists of 11 sections dealing with various aspects of civil rights (voting, housing, education, anti-discrimination). Impact of Administrative Changes on DOJ Priorities: A significant theme is how changes in presidential administrations can redirect the focus and priorities of the DOJ and its sections—especially the Voting Section. While career attorneys (not political appointees) do most of the day-to-day work, political appointees set overarching priorities. Normally, shifts happen between administrations, but under the Trump administration, changes were described as “radical departures,” shifting focus to investigate noncitizen voting and prioritizing policies aligned with the president rather than traditional civil rights enforcement.Dismissal of Civil Servants and Dismantling of the Voting Section: The episode highlights the mass removal of senior civil servants in the Voting Section under Trump's administration, replacing experienced managers and ordering the dismissal of all active cases. This unprecedented action is portrayed as a clear signal of political influence overriding apolitical legal work—and is said to undermine the department's ability to fulfill its civil rights mandate.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica@srl

Trump as payback for his father and him being investigated by the civil rights division of the DOJ has moved to shutter the once proud crown jewel division that was responsible for enforcing the Fair Housing Act, Voting Rights Act, anti-discrimination and harassment laws, investigate and sue over hate crimes, including church and synagogue attacks. Now, under Trump, the division lost 70 percent of its lawyers and has now been reduced to going after transgender people, searching for nonexistent voter fraud, and white people discrimination. On this Law Day, celebrating the rule of law, Michael Popok reports on what's happened and who is responsible. Let Rocket Money reach your financial goals faster by going to https://rocketmoney.com/legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on Ring of Fire! Donald Trump was humiliated on the global stage this past weekend for both his behavior at Pope Francis' funeral, as well as his policies that were attacked during the Homily. Trump was called out for breaking the dress code by wearing a blue suit, for chewing gum during the service, and for playing on his phone. But the real attack came during the Homily, when the world was reminded that the Pope always encouraged people to “build bridges, not walls,” which was a direct line of attack to Trump's “build the wall” pledge. The Trump administration has hit a new level of lawlessness after they proudly announced that they had arrested a judge in Wisconsin for allegedly obstructing the arrest of an undocumented person. The man was appearing in court for domestic battery charges. The administration sent plainclothes officers to arrest him, and when the judge confronted the agents and told them that they didn't have the proper warrant, she directed the defendant and his lawyer to a separate area of the courthouse. The Trump administration has taken the unprecedented move of dismissing ALL of the voting rights cases that the DOJ was actively pursuing against cities, states, or municipalities that may have violated sections of the Voting Rights Act and violated people's rights in the process. They then took things a step further by firing all of the investigators in the voting rights division of the DOJ. This gives states a green light to suppress and violate voting rights across the country. All that, and much more, on this week's Ring of Fire Podcast!

Disability Series. Episode #2 of 4. In 1973, Richard Nixon signed the Rehabilitation Act, a bill intended to increasing hiring, extend rehabilitation services and increase assistance programs for Americans with disabilities. In the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, politicians and activists discussed the bill in explicitly civil rights terms, arguing that as the federal government had protected the civil rights of Black Americans and women, it must also protect the rights of disabled people. While there had been other bills focused on rehabilitation and services before, the Rehabilitation Act stood out to disabled Americans for one reason: one sentence in Section 504 of the bill. While other bills had appropriated money for services or called for programs, they didn't include a provision for enforcement – but Section 504 did exactly that. Disabled people saw an opportunity: Section 504 could radically change life for disabled people in the United States. And when the federal government failed to fully enforce Section 504 in the years after its passage, disabled people took matters into their own hands. Find show notes and transcripts at: www.digpodcast.org Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Slate Senior Writer Mark Joseph Stern joins to break down the latest news out of the Supreme Court and the upcoming SCOTUS docket. https://slate.com/author/mark-joseph-stern https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social Sam and Emma on the latest developments in Trump's manufactured economic crisis before speaking to Mark Joseph Stern, Slate's senior writer covering the Supreme Court and co-host of the Amicus podcast. They cover critical Supreme Court rulings, including the stay on the reinstatement of federal workers fired by the Trump administration and the alarming decision regarding the Alien Enemies Act used to deport Venezuelan migrants without due process. They also delve into the upcoming Supreme Court case Kerr v. Planned Parenthood, which could drastically alter Medicaid and the court's ongoing assault on the Voting Rights Act with the case of Louisiana v. Callais. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Trust and Will: Get 10% off plus free shipping of your estate plan documents by visiting: trustandwill.com/MAJORITY  Delete Me: Text Majority to 64000 for 20% off your DeleteMe subscription   Sunset Lake CBD: Use coupon code LeftIsBest for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @RussFinkelstein Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about “The View's” Whoopi Goldberg shocking her viewers by ignoring the changing mood in the country and having Elie Mystal on to promote radical leftist proposals like abolishing all all laws passed before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as well as supporting Amber Ruffin's comments about Trump voters not being human; Corey Booker setting the record for the longest speech ever for no reason; Stephen Miller explaining to Fox News' Jesse Watters the actual details behind The Atlantic's false reporting of the Trump administration accidentally deporting a US citizen; CNN's Abby Phillip lecturing Scott Jennings about why we should give due process to Tren de Aragua members who came into our country illegally; White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt surprising the press by reading reporters some of the most shocking examples of other countries tariffs against the US; Piers Morgan telling “Fox & Friends” the 2 questions that expose how insane the Democratic Party has become; Kid Rock telling Fox News what Bill Maher and Donald Trump discussed in their special White House meeting; and much more. WATCH the MEMBER-EXCLUSIVE segment of the show here: https://rubinreport.locals.com/ Check out the NEW RUBIN REPORT MERCH here: https://daverubin.store/ ---------- Today's Sponsors: Tax Network USA - If you owe back taxes or have unfiled returns, don't let the government take advantage of you. Whether you owe a few thousand or a few million, they can help you. Call 1(800)-958-1000 for a private, free consultation or Go to: https://tnusa.com/dave Lean - A powerful weight loss supplement with remarkable results to help lower blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy, and curb your appetite. Rubin Report viewers get 20% off plus free rush shipping off their first order! Go to: https://TakeLean.com and enter promo code DAVE20 for your discount 1775 Coffee - Get the Longevity Bundle featuring their top-selling Anti-Aging Coffee, the ultra-rare Peaberry blend, an exclusive 1775-branded tumbler, plus more premium coffee and limited-edition merch you can't find anywhere else. Every dollar you spend enters you to win a blacked-out 2024 Tesla Cybertruck plus $30,000 cash! Rubin Report viewers get 15% off their order. Go to: https://1775coffee.com/RUBIN and use code RUBIN Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jon Lovett joins Leah and Melissa to talk about what's at stake in this week's Wisconsin Supreme Court election and what it was like campaigning for Susan Crawford in Madison and Milwaukee. Then, the ladies run through a busy week of argument recaps, opinions, and legal news, covering the relitigation of the Voting Rights Act, the sunsetting of the administrative state, and that text chain.Hosts' favorite things this week:Leah: After Dobbs, David Cohen & Carol Jaffe; Mayhem, Lady Gaga; Black Bag, Steven Soderbergh; Wrexford & Sloane mystery series by Andrea Penrose; Lawsuits by Wilmer & Jenner challenging wildly unconstitutional executive orders; Judge Howell's order rejecting the request for her to recuse in the challenge to the EO targeting the Perkins Coie orderMelissa: Last week's episode of Strict Scrutiny; A Season of Light, Julie Iromuanya; The Note, Alafair Burke; Yacht Rock: The Dockumentary (Max); Gwyneth and Meghan on Instagram; New Phone; Houthis? (Christian Schneider on X); Text STOP to opt out of war plans (Leta McCullough Seletsky on Bluesky) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

The Gaslit Nation Media Committee, a watchdog against access journalism and regime propaganda, has developed this essential guide. We urge all members of the media to reject complicity in the erosion of democracy.   The American crisis is a global struggle between democracy and fascism—one that threatens the entire world. Each of us has a role in defending freedom. If you work in media, use this guide to safeguard your integrity, your liberty, and the values we cherish—before it's too late. Doing your job well can save lives and democracy.   1. Don't Bury the Lede: Call It an Illegal Tech-Backed Coup To build trust, stick to the facts. When Trump's administration acts illegally, say it—especially in the headline. Call it what it is: a tech-backed coup that exposes Americans' most sensitive data and replaces federal workers with unsecured A.I. to establish a new surveillance state. 2. Make Private Prison Execs Famous Investigate the financial interests behind Trump's immigration system—expose executives, board members, and their connections. Pursue them with cameras; they can't hide behind profits while lives are ruined and civil liberties eroded. 3. Fascism Needs Ignorance From dismantling the Department of Education to the “War on Woke” in universities, Trump continues delegitimizing education. This isn't about competition with other countries—it's about giving everyone the chance to grow as independent thinkers who reject fascism. 4. Follow the Money Investigate Trump's major donors and their role in Musk's illegal purge of government services. Hold them accountable—ask how they view their investments amid the chaos. Track their contracts and regulatory benefits. 5. Expose National Security Threats Trump removed key military officials who prevented unlawful actions. Without them, who will stop him? Trump holds the nuclear football, cozying up to adversaries, sending bombs to Israel, and threatening wars against Canada and Greenland. Focus on how our adversaries are taking advantage. 6. Kleptowatch Focus on how companies exploit customers through greedflation and Amazon's payola for search visibility. While the Biden administration has much to answer for, the media must spotlight the absence of enforcement of investigations brought by Lina Khan and Tim Wu, leaving corporate kleptocrats unchecked. 7. Media Must Thoroughly Cover Media Journalists must cover media attacks, including blocked access to info and censorship (e.g., Ann Telnaes at WaPo). Report on media ecosystem shifts, address bias, and clarify distinctions between reporting, opinion, and lies. Provide context on media ownership. 8. Draw Historical Parallels Trump, Musk, and allies are enacting policies similar to dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. The media must challenge their unfounded assertions. They are attacking the press and critics, reminiscent of regimes like Pol Pot's and Rwanda's genocide. 9. Trump is Trying to Turn America into an Autocracy: Act Like It Columbia Journalism Review shared 10 essential tips for journalists reporting from autocracies. Share these with your teams, including your company's lawyers—killing big stories and obeying in advance is self-destructive. 10. Shine a Light on Private Prisons The private prison industry needs scrutiny, especially with Trump's lack of oversight. Innocent people are caught in reckless immigration raids as the system grows unchecked. Regular coverage of Guantanamo Bay is crucial due to its history of unlawful detention and Trump's plan for a prison camp there for 30,000 people. 11. Gilead is Here The media has abandoned calling out Trump's toxic masculinity regarding reproductive rights and civil rights. Raise awareness of the deadly consequences for women, including trans women, and all nonwhite people. 12. Access Journalism is Betrayal Fascism's history includes journalists from major outlets becoming "masters of euphemism," (to quote Gareth Jones), downplaying atrocities and broken laws to protect access. History will remember you for doing your job or being bought. Doing your job well can save lives and democracy. 13. Family Members Deserve Special Attention Trump's administration is granting lucrative positions to family members of allies and donors, giving them undue influence over policy. These self-dealing networks must be mapped and exposed. 14. Unmask Voter Suppression Election analysis must address gerrymandering, unfair Senate representation favoring "red states," the Electoral College designed to protect elites, and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Don't treat our voter suppression crisis like "horse race" politics. 15. Focus on the 1% Expose extreme wealth inequality—how the 1% dodge taxes and exploit loopholes to preserve their wealth. Put a spotlight on how inequality fuels authoritarianism and is a direct threat to democracy. 16. Cover Protests Highlight actions challenging the White House's destructive crimes. People need to see that citizens care about the laws being broken by Trump's administration and that they're not alone. 17. They're Testing Boundaries: Say It When something is "unprecedented," that means they're testing boundaries, to see what they can get away with. Say it. 18. The Weird Fights Matter Trump renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America may seem "weird," but it's part of the fascist pageantry, like Mussolini's famous eyeliner and Putin's shirtless photos. Look to experts in autocracy to see which stories are being used as a distraction and which stories are important to cover.  An expanded version of the Gaslit Nation Media Guide can be found here: https://www.gaslitnationpod.com/media-guide   For More: Ten Tips for Reporting in an Autocracy American journalists have much to learn from colleagues in countries where democracy has been under siege. https://www.cjr.org/political_press/ten-tips-for-reporting-in-an-autocracy.php   Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!   Music Credit: "Tafi Maradi no voice" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com). Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/  

After a deep dive on the Trump administration's horrifying misuse of the Alien Enemies Act to deport people from the US without due process, Kate and Leah preview upcoming SCOTUS cases about the Voting Rights Act and the Environmental Protection Agency. Along the way, they also touch on the Trump administration's targeting of certain law firms and its continued attacks on DEI. Hosts' favorite things this week: Leah: Fight! Fight! Fight!, Rebecca Traister; AOC's Bluesky feed during the CR debates/debacle; The Hidden Motive Behind Trump's Attacks on Trans People, M. Gessen; This Election Will Be a Crucial Test of Musk's Power, Kate Shaw; Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional, Jamelle BouieKate: The Feminist Law Professor Who Wants to Stop Arresting People for Domestic Violence, Sarah Lustbader; The Dangerous Document Behind Trump's Campus Purges, Daphna Renan & Jesse  Hoffnung-Garskof; The Cost of the Government's Attack on Columbia, Christopher L. Eisgruber Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky