Podcast appearances and mentions of Warren Court

Aughie and Nia discuss the Warren Court, years 1953 to 1969. Earl Warren oversaw the Court during a time of great social change in the United States. In this second episode of the Warren Court, Aughie goes over the landmark cases that show the progressive judicial philosophy of the Warren Court.

A Flint lawyer helped end a Jim Crow relic—and the hometown paper barely noticed. We sit down with Robert Steiger, a retired civil rights attorney whose argument before the Warren Court contributed to striking down Virginia's poll tax. From Detroit roots and Michigan training to a chance move to Flint, Bob's journey shows how a small, principled firm can punch far above its weight. He recalls colleagues who marched in Mississippi, the chill of the McCarthy era, and the National Lawyers Guild network that backed embattled Southern lawyers when local support collapsed.Bob opens the courtroom door and walks us through strategy, nerves, and the give-and-take of a hot bench. He explains how the poll tax worked as voter suppression in plain sight, why a 1930s defeat set the stage for a 1960s victory, and how a 6–3 decision ended poll taxes in five states. We talk about the paradox of recognition—headlines in Time and the New York Times, silence in Flint—and what that says about local power and memory. For legal nerds and history fans, there's rich detail: direct appeals, divided argument time, and the Warren Court's role in expanding voting rights.Beyond the spotlight case, Bob shares decades of trial craft and the quiet power of mediation. He argues that facts carry more weight than doctrine, that civility is a professional asset, and that a strong bar culture can keep hard fights human. Honors like “Champion of Justice” and the Herb Milliken civility award mark a career defined by principle over posture. If you care about voting rights history, Supreme Court storytelling, and the everyday choices that shape justice, this is your listen.Enjoyed the conversation? Follow, rate, and share the show, then email us your thoughts at radiofreeflint@gmail.com. Your reviews help others find thoughtful stories rooted in Flint and relevant nationwide.Join us on The Mitten Channel on Substack.Subscribe at the Free tier for regular investigative essays and updates.Or choose the Premium tier for deeper analysis, forensic breakdowns, and exclusive content for paid subscribers.Visit TheMittenChannel.Substack.com and choose your tier today. The Mitten Channel is a network of podcasts.  

Aughie and Nia discuss the Warren Court, years 1953 to 1969. Earl Warren oversaw the Court during a time of great social change in the United States. In this first episode of the Warren Court, Aughie explains the background and leadership qualities of Earl Warren as a governor of California among other positions.

Harvard law professor Richard Re discusses the evolution of the Supreme Court from the Warren court to the present day, highlighting the historical context of the court's decisions, the role of swing justices, and the current dynamics of originalism and textualism in judicial interpretation.The Agenda:—What is the conservative Warren court?—Reversal in power dynamics—The swing justice era—The Roberts court has the lowest rate of overturning precedents—Common good constitutionalism reflects a generational pivot in legal thought—Textualism is now seen as the generally accepted mode of interpretation—Deference's varied meaningsShow Notes:—Richard Re: To a Conservative Warren Court—Oral argument live blog for Tuesday, January 13—Justices Alito and Thomas dissent in the Parents Protecting Our Children case—Did Justice Kagan debilitate the administrative state?—Not Enough Respect for the Judiciary—Or Too Much?—Supreme Court Increasingly Favors the Rich, Economists Say—Does the Supreme Court Favor the Rich?—Has the Supreme Court Helped Save Democracy? Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How does the Supreme Court really work—and how does one of its youngest justices balance life, law, and seven children? In this in-depth conversation, Justice Amy Coney Barrett discusses her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution. Barrett explains the principles behind originalism, the Court's reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and how the Court reached a decision in landmark cases like Casa de Maryland v. United States and handled a debate over the major questions doctrine. Barrett also opens up about her clerkship with Justice Antonin Scalia, how the Court builds consensus, why stare decisis matters, and how her faith and family life shape her character—but not her judicial reasoning. With the discussion ranging from the Warren Court to the Roberts Court, from Roe v. Wade to Dobbs, this is a very candid and illuminating conversation with a sitting Supreme Court justice. Subscribe to Uncommon Knowledge at hoover.org/uk

OA1204 - As House Speaker Mike Johnson continues to pretend that he doesn't have to seat Democrat Adelita Grijalva well over a month after she was elected to represent Arizona's 7th Congressional district, we take a closer look at the last time that Congress refused to swear someone in and what the Warren Court had to say about it. Who was Harlem Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, why was the House so intent on excluding him in 1966, and how precedential might Powell v. McCormack  be for the lawsuit which Arizona has filed on Grijalva's behalf? Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) Adam by Adam; the autobiography of Adam Clayton Powell, Jr ,  Adam Clayton, Powell Jr. (1972) (Internet Archive) 2 USC Sec 25 Complaint in Arizona v. House of Representatives (filed 10/21/25) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1196 - This week in our continuing Still Good Law series, Matt and Jenessa take on the 1963 Supreme Court case which is still believed to hold the record for angering the most Americans at the same time: 1963's Engel v. Vitale. Find out why a decision which even the Warren Court's conservative justices did not see as particularly controversial to keep New York school administrators from publicly making one 22-word statement to students every morning kicked off a firestorm which is still at the heart of the American culture wars. Engel v. Vitale , 370 U.S. 421 (1963) Engel v. Vitale (New York Supreme Court, 1960) Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) Massachusetts General Law - Part IV, Title I, Chapter 272, Section 36 (Blasphemy statute) GOD, CIVIC VIRTUE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY: RECONSTRUCTING ENGEL, Corinna Barrett Lain, Stanford Law Review (2015)

This Day in Legal History: Earl Warren AppointedOn October 2, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States, setting in motion one of the most transformative periods in Supreme Court history. Warren, who had previously served as Governor of California and was the Republican nominee for Vice President in 1948, was a surprise choice—appointed during a recess of the Senate following the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson. Though Eisenhower reportedly later regretted the decision, Warren would go on to lead a Court that dramatically expanded civil rights, civil liberties, and judicial power.Under Warren's leadership, the Court issued a series of landmark decisions, beginning with Brown v. Board of Educationin 1954, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The Warren Court also established the principle of “one person, one vote” in legislative apportionment, expanded the rights of criminal defendants in cases like Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, and reinforced the wall between church and state. Warren was known for his ability to forge consensus among justices, often securing unanimous decisions in major cases to strengthen the Court's moral authority.His tenure marked a fundamental shift in constitutional interpretation, emphasizing equality, due process, and the role of the judiciary in correcting social injustices. While praised by many for championing individual rights and the rule of law, the Warren Court also faced significant criticism from those who viewed its decisions as judicial activism. Warren retired in 1969, but the legal legacy of his Court continues to shape American law and society.New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit and an emergency motion against U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accusing them of unlawfully withholding nearly $34 million in funding for New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The MTA oversees subway, bus, and commuter rail systems across New York City and surrounding areas. James filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a temporary restraining order to preserve the funds while the legal case proceeds.According to James, DHS abruptly reduced the funding allocation from nearly $34 million to zero, a move she described as unlawful and politically motivated. Her office emphasized that the emergency request does not seek immediate disbursement, but rather aims to prevent the funds from being lost while the court reviews the matter. She warned that the funding freeze could endanger the safety of millions of transit riders in New York.This legal action comes amid broader concerns raised by the U.S. Transportation Department, which recently threatened to withhold 25% of MTA's federal transit funding unless improvements are made to track worker safety protocols. DHS did not provide an immediate response to requests for comment.New York AG James sues Homeland Security for nearly $34 million over transit funding freeze | ReutersApple and OpenAI asked a U.S. judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's AI company, xAI, over claims that their partnership harms competition. xAI's suit, filed in August, seeks billions in damages and argues that Apple's integration of ChatGPT into its devices gives OpenAI an unfair advantage while sidelining rival products like Musk's Grok chatbot. Apple and OpenAI countered that their deal is not exclusive and that Apple plans to work with other generative AI providers.Apple's lawyers emphasized the openness of the agreement, asserting that the arrangement does not prevent competition or violate antitrust laws. In a separate filing, OpenAI described Musk's legal actions as part of a broader “campaign of lawfare” against the company, referencing previous lawsuits Musk has filed, including one challenging OpenAI's shift from nonprofit to for-profit status.OpenAI further argued that xAI had not demonstrated concrete harm or the kind of anticompetitive behavior that antitrust law is designed to prevent. Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 before departing, has accused the company and CEO Sam Altman of straying from its original nonprofit mission.Apple, OpenAI ask US judge to dismiss Musk's suit over competition claims | ReutersLawyers representing Prince Harry and other public figures accused the Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers (ANL), of also targeting Prince William and Princess Kate in an ongoing privacy lawsuit. The new allegations, presented in filings at London's High Court, suggest that confidential details about William's 21st birthday were obtained through “blagging”—a deceptive tactic to access private information. Kate was allegedly targeted by a private investigator working for a Mail journalist.Prince Harry and six others, including Elton John and his husband David Furnish, are suing ANL for alleged privacy violations dating back 30 years. The lawsuit accuses ANL of unlawful activities such as voicemail hacking, obtaining medical records by deception, and even burglary. ANL has denied the claims and called them baseless and exaggerated. A trial is scheduled for early 2026.The publisher pushed back in court, arguing that the claimants failed to connect the alleged misconduct to specific journalists or investigators. They also sought to exclude findings from earlier cases against other newspaper publishers like News Group Newspapers and the Daily Mirror. ANL accused two claimants, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, of manipulating the timing of story publications to evade a statute of limitations—though the court had previously ruled in the claimants' favor on that issue.Prince Harry attended the hearing remotely, while several other claimants were present in court. This lawsuit marks the first time ANL has been directly implicated in the phone-hacking scandal that has plagued British tabloids for nearly two decades.Daily Mail publisher asks UK court to limit Prince Harry lawsuit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

OA1192 - This week in Still Good Law: Katz v. U.S., the 1967 Warren Court case which on its face decided that the Fourth Amendment may apply to a public phone booth. But that's hardly all: the federal prosecution of nationally-famous bookie Charles Katz also completely changed the entire framework for how U.S. courts understand and interpret the law of searches and seizures and completely upended the concept of Fourth Amendment privacy as it had been understood up until that time. Matt provides the background on Katz and how this case made it to the Supreme Court, Jenessa considers the mental health benefits of being left alone by the government, and we talk through how important this vital holding might still be at a time when we have all given up so many of our privacy rights just by living in 2025. Katz v. U.S. (1967) Goldman v.US (1942) Silverman v. US (1967) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1190 - “You have the right to remain silent.” Anyone who grew up on American crime dramas can recite the rest of these famous warnings from memory, but do you know the whole story of Miranda v. Arizona (1966)? In today's entry in our “Still Good Law” series Matt and Jenessa voluntarily waive their rights, cautiously accept a cigarette and a Styrofoam cup of bad coffee from an alcoholic cop with a dark past, and spill everything they know about the most important criminal case in Supreme Court history. Matt provides the background on Ernesto Miranda's literal life (and death) of crime and the circumstances of his arrest, interrogation, and appeal to the Warren Court while Jenessa breaks down the science of false confessions and why not just having but knowing our Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights is so important for all of us. Oral arguments and decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Miranda: The Story of America's Right to Remain Silent, Gary Stuart (2008) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comJill is a writer and scholar. She's a professor of American history at Harvard, a professor of law at Harvard Law, and a staff writer at The New Yorker. She's also the host of the podcast “X-Man: The Elon Musk Origin Story.” Her many books include These Truths: A History of the United States (which I reviewed for the NYT in 2017) and her new one, We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution — out in a few days; pre-order now.For two clips of our convo — on FDR's efforts to bypass the Constitution, and the worst amendment we've had — head to our YouTube page.Other topics: raised by public school teachers near Worcester; dad a WWII vet; her struggles with Catholicism as a teen (and my fundamentalism then); joining ROTC; the origins of the Constitution; the Enlightenment; Locke; Montesquieu; the lame Articles of Confederation; the 1776 declaration; Paine's Common Sense; Madison; Jefferson; Hamilton; Adams; New England town meetings; state constitutional conventions; little known conventions by women and blacks; the big convention in Philly and its secrecy; the slave trade; the Three-Fifths Clause; amendment provisions; worries over mob rule; the Electoral College; jury duty; property requirements for voting; the Jacksonian Era; Tocqueville; the Civil War; Woodrow Wilson; the direct election of senators; James Montgomery Beck (“Mr Constitution”); FDR's court-packing plan; Eleanor's activism; Prohibition and its repeal; the Warren Court; Scalia; executive orders under Trump; and gauging the intent of the Founders.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy. Coming up: John Ellis on Trump's mental health, Michael Wolff on Epstein, Karen Hao on artificial intelligence, Katie Herzog on drinking your way sober, Michel Paradis on Eisenhower, Charles Murray on religion, David Ignatius on the Trump effect globally, and Arthur Brooks on the science of happiness. As always, please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

OA1183 - We continue our ongoing look at some of our favorite Warren Court-era Supreme Court cases with this one-line 1958 decision finding as a matter of law that one of the most important LGTBQ magazines in U.S. history was not publishing obscenity. We begin by trying to find anything resembling smut in the archived pages of ONE magazine before Matt explains a bit more about the history of obscenity law in the U.S. and how Roth v U.S. changed everything just before ONE's cert petition was taken up. Jenessa gets into the proven psychological benefits of being allowed to be who you are in public, and we consider the state of obscenity law today and who still might want to use it. Roth v. United States | 354 U.S. 476 (1957) ONE, Incorporated v. Otto K Oleson: Appellant's Opening Brief – The Tangent Group One, Incorporated v. Olesen, 241 F. 2d 772 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1957 - Google Scholar U.S. Supreme Court's decision on writ of certiorariin On e, Inc. v. Oleson immediately reversing 9th Circuit (1/13/1958) Complete run of One magazine from 1953-1957, Internet Archive

This Day in Legal History: Abington School District v. SchemppOn this day in legal history, June 17, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Abington School District v. Schempp, a landmark case concerning the constitutional boundaries between church and state. The case arose when Edward Schempp, a Unitarian from Pennsylvania, challenged a state law that required public schools to begin each day with Bible readings. The Schempp family argued that this practice violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from endorsing or establishing religion.In an 8–1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of the Schempps, holding that the mandatory Bible readings were unconstitutional. Justice Tom C. Clark, writing for the majority, emphasized that while the government must remain neutral toward religion, the school's policy amounted to state-sanctioned religious exercise. The ruling did not ban the Bible from public schools altogether but clarified that its use must be educational, not devotional.This decision built on the precedent set in Engel v. Vitale (1962), which struck down mandatory prayer in schools, and it reinforced a broader interpretation of the separation of church and state. The ruling provoked strong reactions across the country, with many viewing it as an attack on traditional religious values, while others saw it as a vital protection of individual liberties in a pluralistic society.The case remains a cornerstone in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, shaping debates over religion in public education for decades. It also marked a pivotal moment in the Warren Court's broader effort to expand civil liberties through constitutional interpretation.The American Bar Association (ABA) has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of using executive orders to intimidate major law firms based on their past clients and hiring choices. Filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., the lawsuit argues that these actions violate the U.S. Constitution and have created a chilling effect on the legal profession. The ABA claims Trump's actions hindered its ability to secure legal representation, especially in cases opposing the federal government.The suit comes after four law firms successfully challenged similar executive orders, with judges temporarily or permanently blocking enforcement. One of these firms, Susman Godfrey, is now representing the ABA in this new case. Despite court setbacks, nine firms have agreed to provide nearly $1 billion in free legal services to the Trump administration to avoid similar targeting.White House spokesperson Harrison Fields dismissed the ABA's lawsuit as “frivolous,” asserting presidential authority over security clearances and federal contracting. The ABA also alleges the administration has threatened its accreditation authority and slashed funding, particularly in areas like training legal advocates for domestic violence victims.American Bar Association sues to block Trump's attacks on law firms | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice is undergoing a significant restructuring under the Trump administration, marked by mass resignations, staff reductions, and departmental overhauls. Approximately 4,500 DOJ employees have accepted buyouts through the administration's deferred resignation program, known as “Fork in the Road,” which allows for paid leave through September before official departure. These exits, along with planned eliminations of 5,093 positions, are expected to save around $470 million and reduce the DOJ's workforce from roughly 110,000.The administration's proposed budget for the next fiscal year aims to reshape the DOJ in line with conservative priorities. This includes dismantling the tax division—once staffed by over 500 people—and distributing its enforcement functions across the civil and criminal divisions. Despite some added funding to these divisions, they are also set to reduce attorney headcounts. The move has drawn backlash from former DOJ and IRS officials, who warned it could undermine tax enforcement. The DOJ's top tax official resigned earlier this year in protest.Political leadership changes have also prompted an exodus from the civil rights division, where two-thirds of career attorneys have either resigned or been reassigned. Cuts are also planned for the Environment and Natural Resources Division and other oversight bodies, such as the DOJ Inspector General's office and the Community Relations Service.Other structural shifts include folding INTERPOL's U.S. office into the U.S. Marshals Service, closing multiple field offices, and launching a new firearm rights restoration initiative. The administration has also proposed merging the ATF with the DEA and cutting the FBI's budget by over half a billion dollars.Justice Department to Lose 4,500 Staffers to Buyout Offers (1)Justice Department to Eliminate Tax Unit as Workforce ShrinksThe NCAA's $2.8 billion settlement—approved earlier this month—has reignited momentum in Congress for national legislation to address key issues in college athletics, particularly around antitrust liability, name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation, and student-athlete classification. Beginning July 1, colleges can directly pay athletes, marking a historic shift that has intensified calls for a federal framework to standardize these changes.The settlement, which also includes back pay for nearly 400,000 athletes, has been described as a stabilizing force in the chaotic NIL landscape. It is now being used by the NCAA to push Congress for a liability shield to prevent further antitrust lawsuits. Although several NIL reform bills have been proposed in the past, none have passed. Two current bills—the bipartisan SPORTS Act and the GOP-led SCORE Act—aim to balance athlete rights with regulatory uniformity while clarifying that student-athletes are not employees.The SCORE Act would create revenue-based limits on athlete pay and involve multiple House committees, while the SPORTS Act focuses on educational support and fair market value benchmarks for NIL deals. Both would preempt state laws and address core NCAA concerns.Despite the settlement, legal uncertainty remains. Female athletes have already filed appeals challenging the deal under Title IX, and further litigation is expected. Experts note that any legislation granting an antitrust exemption—similar to the unique one held by Major League Baseball—would face judicial skepticism and political resistance.NCAA's $2.8 Billion Settlement Gets Congress Moving Toward FixesIn my column this week I write a bit about how a tax amnesty program in Illinois might provide a roadmap for the rest of the nifty fifty. Illinois' new remote seller amnesty program offers a strategic and replicable model for encouraging tax compliance among previously noncompliant businesses. By waiving penalties and interest and applying a simplified, flat 9% tax rate across the state's many local jurisdictions, the program lowers the barriers to voluntary disclosure. This approach addresses the core problem of the “compliance paradox,” where businesses avoid coming clean for fear of triggering audits. In contrast to fear-based enforcement, Illinois' model promotes intelligence-based compliance, exchanging amnesty for valuable insights into evasion tactics and tools.The program's design could be adapted to brick-and-mortar businesses engaged in sales suppression through tools like zapper software. If these businesses were offered amnesty in return for disclosing how they evaded taxes—such as revealing the software they used and methods employed—states could use this intelligence to improve enforcement. Such disclosures would turn voluntary compliance into a form of strategic reconnaissance, identifying enforcement blind spots and bad actors.Illinois' policy doesn't just recoup lost revenue; it also creates opportunities to map the ecosystem of tax evasion tools and techniques. By incentivizing transparency and simplifying compliance, the initiative provides a blueprint for other states facing fiscal pressure and looking to modernize tax enforcement.Illinois Remote Seller Amnesty Program Offers Roadmap for States This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of Ellis Conversations, co-host Jamil Ellis sits down again with his father, retired federal magistrate Judge Ronald Ellis, to mark Loving Day — the anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that struck down bans on interracial marriage. What starts as a reflection on Loving Day quickly becomes a powerful and wide-ranging discussion about: How distorted historical narratives fuel today's rollback of civil rights Why anti-DEI forces rely on historical erasure The forgotten legal barriers against women The dangerous nostalgia embedded in the “Make America Great Again” slogan A look at Project 2025, the Federalist Society, and how today's Supreme Court is targeting many of the Warren Court's civil rights decisions From All in the Family to Sidney Poitier, from welfare state debates to voting rights, Judge Ellis breaks down the legal and cultural legacy at stake.   Relevant Links & Resources: Loving v. Virginia (1967) https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395 Warren Court Key Decisions Brown v. Board (1954): https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483 Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155 Miranda v. Arizona (1966): https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759 Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496 Engel v. Vitale (1962): https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468 Tinker v. Des Moines (1969): https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21 Project 2025: https://www.project2025.org Federalist Society: https://fedsoc.org All In The Family theme reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_in_the_Family

Featuring Aziz Rana on the making of the American project and its legitimation through popular worship of the US Constitution. This episode, the second in a three-part series, takes the story from World War I's hyper-nationalist, xenophobic First Red Scare, through the convulsions of the middle decades of the 20th century: the Communist Party USA, the New Deal, World War II, the civil rights movement, the Warren Court, and ultimately the Cold War, when American liberalism, anti-communism, and empire triumphed. Buy Iran in Revolt at Haymarketbooks.com Subscribe to Jacobin in print for $15/yr at bit.ly/digjacobin and Catalyst in print for $20/yr at bit.ly/digcatalyst Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig

Featuring Aziz Rana on the making of the American project and its legitimation through popular worship of the US Constitution. This episode, the second in a three-part series, takes the story from World War I's hyper-nationalist, xenophobic First Red Scare, through the convulsions of the middle decades of the 20th century: the Communist Party USA, the New Deal, World War II, the civil rights movement, the Warren Court, and ultimately the Cold War, when American liberalism, anti-communism, and empire triumphed. Buy Iran in Revolt at Haymarketbooks.com Register for the Socialism Conference at Socialismconference.org before April 25th for an early bird discount! Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig

American history, Clay Risen reminds us, has an uncanny knack of repeating itself. In Red Scare, his important new book about blacklists, McCarthyism and the making of modern America, Risen suggests that Trump and MAGA have happened before. First as the tragedy of Joe McCarthy then as farcical Donald Trump? Or might today's latest chapter in the paranoid style of American history actually be its most consequential and thus tragic?Here are the 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways in this conversation with Risen:* Historical Parallels to Today: Risen suggests that there are striking parallels between the McCarthy era and current American politics under Trump, with similar tactics being used to target perceived enemies and "others" within society. The infrastructure created during previous periods of paranoia (like the FBI and certain immigration laws) is being repurposed in the present day.* Bipartisan Nature of the Red Scare: While often associated with Republicans, the Red Scare had bipartisan elements. Risen explains that Democrats like Harry Truman implemented loyalty programs, and figures like JFK positioned themselves carefully regarding anti-communist sentiment. This challenges the notion that such movements are solely partisan.* Targeting Vulnerable Groups: Both historically and today, political movements often target the most vulnerable groups first. During the Red Scare, Risen explains that was suspected communists and homosexuals; today, transgender people face similar targeting as political pawns and scapegoats.* Impact Beyond the Obviously Political: Risen reminds us that the Red Scare affected ordinary Americans across many sectors - teachers, Hollywood professionals, government workers - whose lives were ruined based on rumors, associations, or past affiliations. This led to widespread conformity as people self-censored to avoid scrutiny.* The Role of Institutions as Backstops: Risen is cautiously optimistic about how America's current paranoid periods might end. He suggests that the judicial system (particularly the Supreme Court) represents the most effective backstop against MAGA excesses, much as the Warren Court eventually helped end McCarthy-era abuses of civil liberties.Clay Risen, a reporter and editor at The New York Times, is the author of Red Scare: Blacklists, McCarthyism, and the Making of Modern America. His other recent books include The Impossible Collection of Whiskey (October, 2020) and Single Malt: A Guide to the Whiskies of Scotland (October, 2018). He is also the author of the spirits bestseller American Whiskey, Bourbon & Rye: A Guide to the Nation's Favorite Spirit, now in its sixth printing with more than 100,000 copies sold. It is widely considered the bible on American whiskey and placed Risen among the leading authorities on the history, business, and diversity of U.S. spirits. Risen has served as a judge on multiple spirit award committees, including the prestigious Ultimate Spirits Challenge. In addition to Red Scare, Risen is the author of The Crowded Hour: Teddy Roosevelt, the Rough Riders and the Dawn of the American Century, a New York Times Notable Book of 2019 and a finalist for the Gilder-Lehrman Prize in Military History; A Nation on Fire: America in the Wake of the King Assassination; and The Bill of the Century: The Epic Battle for the Civil Rights Act. A graduate of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service and the University of Chicago, Risen grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, and now lives in Brooklyn, New York, with his wife and two children. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to this probing, brand-new, fact filled episode of Light ‘Em Up.We are currently being actively downloaded in 119 countries, globally.  Please spread the word with a friend regarding our podcast! Remember, we are here for you and because of you!We tackle the topics that touch your lives!We hear so much talk about the topic of Qualified Immunity — but few really know what it is and what it consists of in much detail.  THIS episode will put to bed ALL of those questions.Bringing a §1983 Civil Rights lawsuit against any government entity is not an easy task to accomplish.Qualified immunity is a judicially crafted legal doctrine and concept created by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Pierson v Ray in 1967.The doctrine was created to protect government officials, particularly law enforcement officers, from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability when they acted in good faith in legally unclear situations.We discuss the requirement (as the law states) that there must be a constitutional violation that infringed upon the rights of a person that was “clearly established” at the time it was committed.Many legal scholars argue that qualified immunity has no legal basis and is not grounded in the text or history of the relevant statutes at 42 U.S. Section 1983.  Many argue that the doctrine signals a retreat from the protections afforded to Black victims of racial terror by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act).Several of our guests on Light ‘Em Up have run face first into the stone-cold, hard truths and effects of qualified immunity.—      As a case study we'll examine the fact pattern in a case called Betts v Brennan whereby an officer was sued for using his taser on a non-compliant motorist.—      We examine and amplify on the historic background of the concept of qualified immunity.—      Drilling down on the original intent, pro's/con's and purposes of the law.—      Search out how this doctrine, for lack of a better description, has become “twisted and perverted”, providing what for all intents and purposes is a never-ending “get out of jail free card” to members of law enforcement (and other governmental agents) — even when they violate the law.We share inconvenient truths how qualified immunity (as it has been regularly implemented):—      erodes justice and public trust—     blocks accountability—     sets an unreasonably high legal barrier—     serves to further injure those who have already been injured — as victims must identify a near-identical precedent, meaning they have to cite a similar case that a prior victim experienced to challenge misconduct, as we mentioned, an often “insurmountable legal hurdle”.As education is always a foundational pillar of Light ‘Em Up, we introduce you to the concept of Respondeat superior:  A legal doctrine and Latin term that literally means, “let the master respond”.It holds employers liable for the actions of their employees — which is also known as vicarious liability.And we empower you with six of the Supreme Court's landmark decisions that have further defined and carved out this judicial doctrine since its inception by the Warren Court.This episode is jam-packed with rock-solid research and information regarding the legal concept of qualified immunity. After today, after tuning in, you will speak with authority about the topic — forever setting you head and shoulders above and apart from everyone else — who speak without knowing.Tune in and be educated and empowered you with the facts, not fiction!Follow our sponsors:  Newsly & Feedspot.We want to hear from you!

What happens when a cornerstone of democracy begins to show cracks? On this episode of After America as we scrutinize the U.S. Supreme Court's transformation and its far-reaching impacts on American democracy. We trace key moments from Justice Antonin Scalia's death to the rapid confirmation of conservative justices under President Trump. This episode unpacks the historical roots of the judiciary, its intended role as an independent arbiter of justice, and the seismic shifts that have led to a 6-3 conservative supermajority.We confront the controversies marring the Supreme Court's image, from contentious nomination processes to ethical dilemmas involving Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. We also explore how these controversies are eroding public trust and threatening the judiciary's credibility.  Landmark cases like Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization underscore the judiciary's evolving influence on societal values and individual liberties, and alert us to the grave consequences of increasing partisan divides in judicial appointments.Is American democracy at risk? We discuss how the judiciary might bolster or dismantle democratic values amid these challenges. From the strategic delays in confirming justices to the potential chaos of a future Trump presidency, this episode offers a sobering look at the judiciary's pivotal role in safeguarding—or undermining—democratic principles. Guests: Dr. Sara Benesh, Dr. Tara Grove, Dr. David Faris, Dr. Tom Ginsburg, and Stephen Marche Credits:Infados - Kevin MacLeodDark Tales: Music by Rahul Bhardwaj from Pixabay-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Could Joe Biden sue a faithless delegate? Would Brown v. Board exist if a supermajority had opposed integration? Is the next generation of lawyers doomed? In a special live recording at the American Enterprise Institute, Sarah and David contemplate a series of worst-case hypotheticals and answer audience questions. Bonus: originalist David French (somewhat) defends the Warren Court. Agenda: —Bound, free, and faithless DNC delegates —How the 12th Amendment could cause a 13th-hour, three-way race for president —What the 25th Amendment might mean for Vice President Kamala Harris —The legitimacy of a counter-majoritarian Supreme Court —SCOTUS as a lagging indicator —The fairness problem of the “Stolen Seat” —Common-good constitutionalism, originalism, and the battle for the legal right —Expertise and the elites Show Notes: —Brown v. Board of Education —Plessy v. Ferguson —Advisory Opinions' “Chevron is Dead, Long Live Chevron” —The Dispatch's fact-check of Project 2025 —Gallup & Pew's SCOTUS polling —New York Times: “Donors to Pro-Biden Super PAC Are Said to Withhold Roughly $90 Million” —Bostock v. Clayton County —Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt —June Medical v. Russo —Buck v. Bell —The Atlantic: “How Liberal College Campuses Benefit Conservative Students” —Kamala Harris' viral “coconut tree” moment Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get your brapanadas ready because we're bringing empanadas back, baby! Maybe with some colonial-era tea and Madeira.We rewind to Warren Court, Clinton School trivia, and Green Door Studio. We're looking forward to Inspired Minds, MayFest, HoliFest, Mychal Threets, SOMA Community Yoga for AAPI, Painters in the Park, All the Tea at Durand-Hedden House, Repair Cafe, Back to the 70s, Plotting Intrigue, and A Curious Hunger.Three Things with SOMA Action, South Mountain Conservancy, and Maplewoodstock.If you like this sort of thing, give us a rating and a review on the podcast platform of your choice. Also, to hear all the juicy bloopers and other extra content, become a Patreon.LINKSReproductive Justice CommitteeSouth Mountain Conservancy Free guided hikesMake the Right Call

“When someone lies to me . . . there's a reason they're lying. And for me, I think it's part of my ethical responsibility as a lawyer to expose someone.”In this episode of Voices of NCAJ, host Amber Nimocks interviews Alex Charns, a criminal defense attorney in Durham who has written a book about the FBI's secret tapes on the Supreme Court of the 1960s and his decades-long battles to access them. After being inspired by David Garrow's book on FBI tactics against Martin Luther King Jr., Charns has embarked on a career-spanning pursuit of uncovering hidden truths through FOIA requests and litigation against the FBI. His latest book, FBI Snitches, Blackmail, and Obscene Ethics at the Supreme Court, sheds light on his 13-year legal battle to release secret FBI files, revealing shocking revelations about unethical behavior and blackmail involving a Supreme Court justice.

This Day in Legal History: Earl Warren is BornThis day in legal history, March 19, 1891, Earl Warren was born in Los Angeles, California. Warren would go on to become one of the most influential Chief Justices in the history of the United States Supreme Court. He was appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 and served as Chief Justice until 1969.As a jurist, Warren is best known for the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which unanimously ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. His opinion in that case helped spark the civil rights movement and began the process of ending legalized racial discrimination in America.Under his leadership, the Warren Court also issued key rulings expanding civil liberties, criminal procedure rights, and the separation of church and state. Other famous cases included Gideon v. Wainwright, requiring legal representation for criminal defendants, and Miranda v. Arizona, mandating procedural safeguards for suspects interrogated while in police custody.As the head of the Warren Commission, Earl Warren played a pivotal role in investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which occurred on November 22, 1963. Under Warren's leadership, the commission conducted thorough inquiries and interviews, culminating in the 1964 Warren Report, which concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating the president. Warren's stewardship of the commission solidified his legacy in American history.Earl Warren's tenure coincided with turbulent social changes and he steered the Court in a liberal, egalitarian direction through a series of historic rulings protecting individual freedoms and equal rights. Warren passed away on July 9, 1974, but his impact on American law and society endures.The federal judiciary has introduced updated financial disclosure rules mandating justices and judges to report the value of free trips, a response partly spurred by public scrutiny over Justice Clarence Thomas' travels funded by a billionaire benefactor. This move, aimed at enhancing transparency, now classifies these travel-related gifts with their respective values, moving away from the previous categorization under "reimbursements." This change comes amid calls for ethics reform within the U.S. Supreme Court, highlighted by reports of Thomas' extravagant trips provided by real estate developer Harlan Crow. The revisions include specific guidance on reporting "transportation that substitutes for commercial transportation," which now cannot be exempted as "personal hospitality." Under the new rule, Thomas' previously listed travels as "reimbursements" will now need to be disclosed as gifts, reflecting an effort to align more closely with statutory requirements and ensuring comprehensive reporting.It is worth noting that rules such as any Supreme Court ethics guidelines, lacking enforcement mechanisms or clear consequences for violations, warrant significant skepticism. In the absence of accountability measures, the efficacy of these rules is undermined, leaving room for potential misconduct without repercussions. With impeachment as the sole remedy for addressing the actions of a rogue justice, the practicality of achieving such a recourse is exceedingly challenging. This deficiency in accountability and enforceability highlights the need for robust mechanisms to ensure judicial integrity and uphold public trust in the judiciary.Judiciary Adopts New Financial Disclosure Rules for Free TripsThe US Supreme Court has extended the temporary hold on a Texas law designed to allow the state to arrest and deport individuals entering the country illegally, without setting a definitive end date for the pause. This action underscores the ongoing legal battle between the Biden administration, which argues that the law encroaches on federal authority over immigration policy, and Texas, which claims it has the right to defend itself against illegal immigration under the Constitution.Supreme Court Extends Pause on Texas Migrant Deportation LawDraftKings Inc. has escalated its legal battle against a former executive, Michael Hermalyn, who is accused of stealing company secrets to benefit his new employer, Fanatics Inc. The allegations include the unauthorized downloading of client files and confidential marketing strategies, as well as attempts to recruit DraftKings employees, some of which reportedly occurred while Hermalyn was staying at the home of Fanatics' CEO. Despite a temporary restraining order, DraftKings is seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce Hermalyn's non-compete agreement for a full year, preventing him from working at Fanatics. The court has so far denied Hermalyn's request to loosen the restraining order, allowing him to work for Fanatics only if he refrains from using DraftKings' confidential information. DraftKings claims to have uncovered extensive evidence of Hermalyn's misconduct, including a "deletion spree" of documents and misleading statements during his deposition. Meanwhile, Hermalyn has countered with a lawsuit in California seeking to nullify his non-compete agreement, arguing that the matter should be settled there rather than in Massachusetts, where DraftKings is headquartered. The case, which has sparked significant legal and competitive controversy, is set for a hearing on April 2.DraftKings Alleges Ex-VP Stole Secrets While Houseguest of RivalThe U.S. Department of Justice, under the leadership of Ismail Ramsey, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, is intensifying its efforts to combat fraud among artificial intelligence (AI) and tech start-ups, particularly those that deceive investors in the lead-up to their initial public offerings (IPOs). Situated in the heart of Silicon Valley, Ramsey's office is taking a stance against the "fake it til you make it" mentality that has marred the tech industry, evidenced by notorious cases like Theranos and uBiome Inc., which misled investors about their technological capabilities and business prospects. Ramsey highlighted the challenges in policing private companies, which face less scrutiny compared to public entities and require investors to be more vigilant in their due diligence. With the burgeoning investor interest in AI technologies, Ramsey emphasizes that this sector is especially prone to fraudulent claims, setting the stage for a targeted crackdown. The appointment of Jina Choi, with her extensive background in corporate crime at the SEC and a law firm, to lead a team focusing on such frauds, underscores the seriousness of the Justice Department's initiative. Additionally, Ramsey has established a dedicated unit for cybersecurity and intellectual property theft, demonstrating a broadened approach to safeguarding the integrity of the U.S. financial and technological landscape.US DOJ to target pre-IPO artificial intelligence frauds, top attorney says | ReutersWashington, Colorado, and Minnesota are the latest states to announce their adoption of the Next Gen bar exam, with scheduled transitions in July 2026, July 2027, and July 2028, respectively. This move aligns them with 14 other jurisdictions preparing for a significant shift in the way future lawyers are assessed. The Next Gen bar exam represents the first substantial revision of the bar exam in a quarter-century, initiated by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) in 2021, with a goal to more accurately measure candidates' practical legal skills rather than their rote memorization capacity. Unlike the traditional bar exam, which is segmented into multiple-choice questions, essay exams, and performance tests, the Next Gen exam consolidates these elements into a unified, computer-based test, shortening the duration from 12 to nine hours. This overhaul aims to reflect a more realistic and applicable approach to evaluating readiness for legal practice. However, several key states, including California, New York, Florida, and Texas, have not yet disclosed when they will transition to this new format. The change indicates a significant shift in legal education and licensure, highlighting a move towards prioritizing functional legal knowledge and skills.Revamped bar exam gains traction as three more states sign on | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Discover the seismic shifts within the highest court of the United States as legal scholar and former Clerk to Supreme Court Justice William Douglas,  Lucas Powe, and Shawn unravel the conservative turn of the Roberts Court. We dissect the landmark decisions that have not only redefined the legal landscape but have also sparked debates about the very legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Our discussion ventures into the ethical complexities faced by Justices Alito and Thomas, and how recent rulings may influence crucial elections looming on the horizon.Join us for a profound analysis of the Supreme Court's ideological journey, where we juxtapose the court's modern conservative ethos with the liberal undertones of the Warren Court era. We scrutinize the court's recent forays into Second Amendment rights, affirmative action, and the unsettling reluctance to adhere to precedent. Through our dialogue, we probe the philosophical underpinnings of originalism and deliberate on whether the court is swaying too far from its historical moorings, risking its own integrity.As we peer into the intricate dance between the Supreme Court and public opinion, we tackle the question of judicial reform, including the contentious debate on imposing term limits for justices. We seek to illuminate the court's alignment with certain societal values and its consequential role in shaping our democracy. It's a pivotal moment for judicial independence and impartiality, and we emphasize the importance of maintaining these principles to uphold the democratic promise of justice and fairness, particularly as we stand at the cusp of critical electoral decisions.Recommended: The Warren Court and American Politics - Lucas Powe-------------------------Follow Deep Dive:InstagramPost.newsYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com **Artwork: Dovi Design **Music: Joystock

Filmmaker Dawn Porter's documentaries run the spectrum of the political world and process, including Bobby Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign, the legacy of Congressman John Lewis, the Tulsa massacre, Civil War spies, abortion and more. Her latest project, the mini-series “Deadlocked,” is a history of the modern Supreme Court, from the Warren Court to the present, and how politics have changed the court, and how the court has changed politics.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Filmmaker Dawn Porter's documentaries run the spectrum of the political world and process, including Bobby Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign, the legacy of Congressman John Lewis, the Tulsa massacre, Civil War spies, abortion and more. Her latest project, the mini-series “Deadlocked,” is a history of the modern Supreme Court, from the Warren Court to the present, and how politics have changed the court, and how the court has changed politics.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by award-winning documentarian and lawyer Dawn Porter for a conversation about two projects shining a light on the law and how we can shape it: Porter's new Showtime documentary series Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court, and the paperback release of Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America.  Together they trace the political shifts and cultural earthquakes from the Warren Court to the Burger, Rehnquist and now Roberts Court, and they discuss how the courts current crisis of legitimacy cannot be cured with a moratorium on criticism. In both Lady Justice and Deadlocked a truth surfaces: when it comes to the rule of law, there is no “plan b”, so the challenge to Dawn's audience, Dahlia's readers and Amicus listeners is the same: to use the law as a tool for progress and justice.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is now out in paperback. It is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. https://books.supportingcast.fm/lady-justice Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by award-winning documentarian and lawyer Dawn Porter for a conversation about two projects shining a light on the law and how we can shape it: Porter's new Showtime documentary series Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court, and the paperback release of Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America.  Together they trace the political shifts and cultural earthquakes from the Warren Court to the Burger, Rehnquist and now Roberts Court, and they discuss how the courts current crisis of legitimacy cannot be cured with a moratorium on criticism. In both Lady Justice and Deadlocked a truth surfaces: when it comes to the rule of law, there is no “plan b”, so the challenge to Dawn's audience, Dahlia's readers and Amicus listeners is the same: to use the law as a tool for progress and justice.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book  Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is now out in paperback. It is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. https://books.supportingcast.fm/lady-justice Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by award-winning documentarian and lawyer Dawn Porter for a conversation about two projects shining a light on the law and how we can shape it: Porter's new Showtime documentary series Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court, and the paperback release of Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law, and the Battle to Save America.  Together they trace the political shifts and cultural earthquakes from the Warren Court to the Burger, Rehnquist and now Roberts Court, and they discuss how the courts current crisis of legitimacy cannot be cured with a moratorium on criticism. In both Lady Justice and Deadlocked a truth surfaces: when it comes to the rule of law, there is no “plan b”, so the challenge to Dawn's audience, Dahlia's readers and Amicus listeners is the same: to use the law as a tool for progress and justice.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.  Dahlia's book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is now out in paperback. It is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout. https://books.supportingcast.fm/lady-justice Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Before the 1950s, the Supreme Court was best known as an institution that adhered to the status quo. It often sought to protect the rights of property owners and businessmen, shying away from cases that took direct aim at controversial social or political issues.But when a popular former California governor became Chief Justice in 1953, all that changed. Earl Warren's court would take on some of the hottest issues of the times, ruling on cases where individual rights would take precedent, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Baker v. Carr, and where First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights would be strengthened, such as Engle v. Vitale and Miranda v. Arizona.For sixteen years, the Warren Court would radically reshape the legal and social landscape of America.Listen ad free with Wondery+. Join Wondery+ for exclusives, binges, early access, and ad free listening. Available in the Wondery App. https://wondery.app.link/historytellersSupport us by supporting our sponsors!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In his new book, The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, Michael Waldman identifies three times the U.S. Supreme Court caused a public backlash against itself—and warns the court may be well along the path to a fourth massive public backlash. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Waldman walks the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles through the prior episodes of backlash, starting with the fallout from the Dred Scott decision in 1857. He explains the “switch in time that saved nine,” when in 1937 the court narrowly avoided President Franklin D. Roosevelt's plan to change the makeup of the court by unexpectedly upholding the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. And he posits that much of the contentious legal wrangling of the past half-century can be seen as a backlash to the Warren Court's decisions like Brown v. Board of Education. Waldman, a constitutional lawyer who is the president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law and a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, says that over the period of three days in June 2022, “the Supreme Court changed America.” With decisions overturning Roe v. Wade, loosening gun restrictions and reducing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, Waldman argues that the court's six conservative justices signaled a sea change for the court. He warns that the change from a 5-4 ideological balance to what he terms a “supermajority” of conservative justices will mean a more turbulent relationship between the public and the Supreme Court. In this episode, Waldman shares his thoughts on the position of Chief Justice Roberts in the new balance, his advice on how the public can respond when the Supreme Court acts in opposition to the public will, and a counter-intuitive theory on why having more former politicians on the Supreme Court might have made the court less politically divisive.

In his new book, The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, Michael Waldman identifies three times the U.S. Supreme Court caused a public backlash against itself—and warns the court may be well along the path to a fourth massive public backlash. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Waldman walks the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles through the prior episodes of backlash, starting with the fallout from the Dred Scott decision in 1857. He explains the “switch in time that saved nine,” when in 1937 the court narrowly avoided President Franklin D. Roosevelt's plan to change the makeup of the court by unexpectedly upholding the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. And he posits that much of the contentious legal wrangling of the past half-century can be seen as a backlash to the Warren Court's decisions like Brown v. Board of Education. Waldman, a constitutional lawyer who is the president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law and a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, says that over the period of three days in June 2022, “the Supreme Court changed America.” With decisions overturning Roe v. Wade, loosening gun restrictions and reducing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, Waldman argues that the court's six conservative justices signaled a sea change for the court. He warns that the change from a 5-4 ideological balance to what he terms a “supermajority” of conservative justices will mean a more turbulent relationship between the public and the Supreme Court. In this episode, Waldman shares his thoughts on the position of Chief Justice Roberts in the new balance, his advice on how the public can respond when the Supreme Court acts in opposition to the public will, and a counter-intuitive theory on why having more former politicians on the Supreme Court might have made the court less politically divisive.

In his new book, The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, Michael Waldman identifies three times the U.S. Supreme Court caused a public backlash against itself—and warns the court may be well along the path to a fourth massive public backlash. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Waldman walks the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles through the prior episodes of backlash, starting with the fallout from the Dred Scott decision in 1857. He explains the “switch in time that saved nine,” when in 1937 the court narrowly avoided President Franklin D. Roosevelt's plan to change the makeup of the court by unexpectedly upholding the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. And he posits that much of the contentious legal wrangling of the past half-century can be seen as a backlash to the Warren Court's decisions like Brown v. Board of Education. Waldman, a constitutional lawyer who is the president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law and a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, says that over the period of three days in June 2022, “the Supreme Court changed America.” With decisions overturning Roe v. Wade, loosening gun restrictions and reducing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, Waldman argues that the court's six conservative justices signaled a sea change for the court. He warns that the change from a 5-4 ideological balance to what he terms a “supermajority” of conservative justices will mean a more turbulent relationship between the public and the Supreme Court. In this episode, Waldman shares his thoughts on the position of Chief Justice Roberts in the new balance, his advice on how the public can respond when the Supreme Court acts in opposition to the public will, and a counter-intuitive theory on why having more former politicians on the Supreme Court might have made the court less politically divisive.

The most critical part of a homeschool curriculum must be. . .what?  History.  But how do you know you are teaching the RIGHT history?  We go through some of the basics, drawing in Andrew Jackson, Samuel Worcester, Sheridan, Hitler, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Eisenhower and the Warren Court. Be sure to hear the stories, but be sure you are aware of the absolutely indispensable elements of an essential, comprehensive, right-worldview-based history curriculum. This program includes: 1. The World View in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus (Victoria Jackson opposes homosexual behavior; Somalia's drought; Bible Society poll: 86% think America in moral decline) 2. Generations with Kevin Swanson

The most critical part of a homeschool curriculum must be. . .what----History.--But how do you know you are teaching the RIGHT history----We go through some of the basics, drawing in Andrew Jackson, Samuel Worcester, Sheridan, Hitler, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Eisenhower and the Warren Court. Be sure to hear the stories, but be sure you are aware of the absolutely indispensable elements of an essential, comprehensive, right-worldview-based history curriculum.--This program includes---1. The World View in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus -Victoria Jackson opposes homosexual behavior- Somalia's drought- Bible Society poll- 86- think America in moral decline---2. Generations with Kevin Swanson

Anti-miscegenation laws. In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws were passed by most states to prohibit interracial marriage, and in some cases also prohibit interracial sexual relations. Some such laws predate the establishment of the United States, some dating to the later 17th or early 18th century, a century or more after the complete racialization of slavery. Nine states never enacted such laws; 25 states had repealed their laws by 1967, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that such laws were unconstitutional (via the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868) in the remaining 16 states. The term miscegenation was first used in 1863, during the American Civil War, by journalists to discredit the abolitionist movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of interracial marriage after the abolition of slavery. Typically defining mixed-race marriages or sexual relations as a felony, these laws also prohibited the issuance of marriage licenses and the solemnization of weddings between mixed-race couples and prohibited the officiation of such ceremonies. Sometimes, the individuals attempting to marry would not be held guilty of miscegenation itself, but felony charges of adultery or fornication would be brought against them instead. All anti-miscegenation laws banned marriage between whites and non-white groups, primarily black people, but often also Native Americans and Asian Americans. In many states, anti-miscegenation laws also criminalized cohabitation and sex between whites and non-whites. In addition, Oklahoma in 1908 banned marriage "between a person of African descent" and "any person not of African descent"; Louisiana in 1920 banned marriage between Native Americans and African Americans (and from 1920 to 1942, concubinage as well); and Maryland in 1935 banned marriages between black people and Filipinos. While anti-miscegenation laws are often regarded as a Southern phenomenon, most states of the Western United States and the Great Plains also enacted them. Although anti-miscegenation amendments were proposed in the United States Congress in 1871, 1912–1913, and 1928, a nationwide law against mixed-race marriages was never enacted. Prior to the California Supreme Court's ruling in Perez v Sharp (1948), no court in the United States had ever struck down a ban on interracial marriage. In 1967, the United States Supreme Court (the Warren Court) unanimously ruled in Loving v Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. After Loving, the remaining state anti-miscegenation laws were repealed; the last state to repeal its laws against interracial marriage was Alabama in 2000. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

This Christmas Eve, I'm giving my readers the gift of a very special podcast. Marc Andreessen and Rob Henderson join me to talk about The Shield, which ran on FX from 2002 to 2008. We debate whether we are supposed to root for the Strike Team or not, with Rob saying no, and Marc and me strongly disagreeing. Building on our discussions on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, Marc gives his Nietzschean interpretation of the show. To me, this was the most right-wing show I've ever seen. The lesson is basically that white cops who actually care about what happens on the streets are the only thing maintaining order, which they are able to do as long as they are not stopped by affirmative action, criminal defense lawyers, or the weakness and inertia of government. While the Strike Team does bad things, their actions are, for most of the series at least, directed towards protecting the innocent and ultimately the greater good. Sam Bankman-Fried would approve.Marc discusses the show in the context of the history of policing in Los Angeles, and posits that places go through cycles in which crime increases, and there is then a demand for someone to keep order. I point out that some civil liberties that many Americans think are a deep part of our heritage were actually invented by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, including criminals having the right to a court-appointed attorney and being read their Miranda rights. I see The Shield as critiquing the pro-criminal jurisprudence of the Warren Court, and making clear its practical consequences. A lesson seems to be that the reason crime hasn't been even worse is that certain cops are willing to disobey the letter and spirit of the law, at great personal risk, for the sake of protecting their community.People have said the show is based on the Ramparts scandal. Having read the New Yorker piece that Marc suggests, I think that there's no more than a superficial resemblance. Nonetheless, the article is worth reading, as it shows the interconnectedness between crime, the civil rights machines, and affirmative action in policing. The most corrupt cops were tied to gang bangers, and when one of them was killed by a fellow police officer in what is widely acknowledged to have been a justified shooting, the association of black officers demanded “an official police funeral with full honors, a ceremony reserved for policemen killed in the line of duty.” Civil rights law demanded more black cops, quotas were set, and when those hired turned out to be corrupt, that fact became the basis for civil rights lawsuits filed on behalf of criminals! There's no part of the criminal justice system that isn't touched by the cancer of identity politics. Part of our discussion centers around Mara. I found her arc particularly touching. We of course talk about the ending, which hit me harder than any show I can remember watching. As we all acknowledge, the Strike Team is far from morally blameless. But I still think that, as tragic as their story was or how many mistakes they made, they lived by a code, and were ultimately the defenders of a divided and ungrateful community. Listen here or watch our conversation on YouTube.LinksMe and Marc Andreessen discuss Better Call Saul and Breaking BadMe, Marc Andreessen, and Chris Nicholson on the series finale of Better Call SaulRandall Sullivan, Labyrinth: Corruption & Vice in the L.A.P.D.Peter Boyer, “Bad Cops.” (The New Yorker, May 13, 2001)LAPD Blues (Frontline Documentary)James Elroy, LA Confidential.James Elroy, White Jazz.Tim Golden, “The Cienfuegos Affair: Inside the Case that Upended the Drug War in Mexico.” (The New York Times, December 8, 2022)Rob Henderson, “Good Cop and Bad Cop Left for the Day. I'm a Different Kind of Cop.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit richardhanania.substack.com/subscribe

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The conventional wisdom about Felix Frankfurter--Harvard law professor and Supreme Court justice--is that he struggled to fill the seat once held by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Scholars have portrayed Frankfurter as a judicial failure, a liberal lawyer turned conservative justice, and the Warren Court's principal villain. And yet none of these characterizations rings true. A pro-government, pro-civil rights liberal who rejected shifting political labels, Frankfurter advocated for judicial restraint--he believed that people should seek change not from the courts but through the democratic political process. Indeed, he knew American presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, advised Franklin Roosevelt, and inspired his students and law clerks to enter government service. Organized around presidential administrations and major political and world events, this definitive biography chronicles Frankfurter's impact on American life. As a young government lawyer, he befriended Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Holmes. As a Harvard law professor, he earned fame as a civil libertarian, Zionist, and New Deal power broker. As a justice, he hired the first African American law clerk and helped the Court achieve unanimity in outlawing racially segregated schools in Brown v. Board of Education. In Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment (Norton, 2022), Brad Snyder offers a full and fascinating portrait of the remarkable life and legacy of a long misunderstood American figure. This is the biography of an Austrian Jewish immigrant who arrived in the United States at age eleven speaking not a word of English, who by age twenty-six befriended former president Theodore Roosevelt, and who by age fifty was one of Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisers. It is the story of a man devoted to democratic ideals, a natural orator and often overbearing justice, whose passion allowed him to amass highly influential friends and helped create the liberal establishment. William Domnarski is a longtime lawyer who before and during has been a literary guy, with a Ph.D. in English. He's written five books on judges, lawyers, and courts, two with Oxford, one with Illinois, one with Michigan, and one with the American Bar Association. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

It may appear to be a rogue court today but the truth is the Supreme Court has long led the fight against democracy. Our guest today historian Steve Fraser points out that the liberal Warren Court was the real aberration. The post The Tyranny of the Supreme Court is Nothing New, It’s Tradition appeared first on Keeping Democracy Alive.

From shifts in the law to public reaction to its rulings, the US Supreme Court's just-concluded term appears to be a blockbuster like no other. Since the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, “I don't think we've seen any term that comes close to the one we just saw,” said A.E. Dick Howard, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia and a former clerk to Justice Hugo Black. During the term that wrapped up June 30, the court overturned the 1973 landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade and broadened the reach of the Second Amendment for the first time in over a decade. The justices also continued to establish a robust right to religious freedom at the expense of other priorities, and set up severe limits on the so-called administrative state. Howard Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to put in prospective how the term fits with the court's more than 230-year history. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

In the past few weeks alone, the Supreme Court has delivered a firestorm of conservative legal victories. States now have far less leeway to restrict gun permits. The right to abortion is no longer constitutionally protected. The Environmental Protection Agency has been kneecapped in its ability to regulate carbon emissions, and by extension, all executive branch agencies will see their power significantly diminished.But to focus only on this particular Supreme Court term is to miss the bigger picture: In the past few decades, conservative court majorities have dragged this country's laws to the right on almost every issue imaginable. Shelby County v. Holder gutted the Voting Rights Act and opened the door for states to pass restrictive voting laws. Rucho v. Common Cause limited the court's ability to curb partisan gerrymandering. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission unleashed a torrent of campaign spending. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 weakened unions. A whole slew of cases, including some decided on the shadow docket during the Covid-19 pandemic, undercut federal agencies' power to help govern in an era of congressional gridlock. And that's only a partial list.Kate Shaw is a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, a co-host of the legal podcast Strict Scrutiny and a former clerk for Justice John Paul Stevens. In this episode, she walks me through the most significant Supreme Court cases over the past 20 years, from the court's decision to hand George W. Bush the presidency in 2000, to the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act, to the assertion of an individual's right to bear arms.Along the way, we discuss the right's decades-long effort to transform American law from the bench, how Republican-appointed judges have consistently entrenched Republican political power, the interpretive bankruptcy of constitutional originalism, how the Warren Court radicalized the conservative legal movement, what might happen to decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges now that the court majority seems to be so comfortable throwing out precedent, what cases to watch in the Roberts Court's next term, and more.Mentioned:“After Citizens United: How Outside Spending Shapes American Democracy” by Nour Abdul-Razzak, Carlo Prato and Stephane Wolton“The Most Important Study in the Abortion Debate” by Annie LowreyBook recommendations:The Turnaway Study by Diana Greene FosterTorn Apart by Dorothy RobertsWho Decides? by Jeffrey S. Sutton51 Imperfect Solutions by Jeffrey S. SuttonThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin and Rogé Karma; fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Rollin Hu, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair; original music by Isaac Jones; mixing by Isaac Jones; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Special thanks to Kristin Lin, Kristina Samulewski, David A. Kaplan, Ian Millhiser, Aziz Rana and Kate Redburn.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Alabama that would have opened the justices up to revisiting a landmark 1964 decision that established libel law for journalists across the country.That said, Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying that the standard for libel needs a judicial revisit by the nation's highest legal body. Justice Neil Gorsuch had previously sought such a relook. What could this possibly mean for radio and television newsrooms, and any on-air personality, when it comes to what is said on the air?RBR+TVBR Editor-in-Chief Adam R Jacobson turned to Davis Wright Tremaine Partner Robert Corn-Revere, who defended CBS Corporation against the FCC in the infamous Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction" case, for his expert insight on the matter.What would the implications on U.S. broadcast media be if The New York Times v. Sullivan, a 9-0 opinion of the Warren Court, were to be struck down? We learn more in this InFOCUS Podcast, presented by dot.FM.

French postcards were as close as one could get to Playboy in the 19th century. And apparently, they were ubiquitous in America, particularly during the Civil War. And according to our guest, Professor Brett Gary, that's a good starting point to talk about the history of censorship in America. Anthony Comstock served in the Civil War and was appalled by the volume of pornography enjoyed by Union soldiers. After the war, he manifested his dedication to upholding Christian morality by becoming an anti-vice activist to root out obscene literature. To be sure, many were committed to this cause. But it was Comstock who had the power to impose his righteousness on others because of his positions as the U.S. Postal Inspector and secretary of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. Later, the federal and many states' mini Comstock laws were named after him. With these laws, the vice squad raided bookstores, threatened publishers, and removed books from libraries. And surprisingly, these laws are still on the books, even if they are rarely enforced. But as time wore on, the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly during the Warren Court, restricted the scope of the Comstock laws. So in our time, while there is no censorship of adult literature, school literature continues to be subject to local scrutiny and banning. The latest high-profile such censorship was in Tennessee, where "Maus", a Pulitzer Prize-winning book about the Holocaust was banned. Professor Gary takes us through the history of censorship, including the pre-Civil War fear of "race suicide", all the way to the story of "Maus." He teaches at NYU's Dept. of Media, Culture, and Communication, and his recent book is titled Dirty Works, Obscenity on Trial in America's First Sexual Revolution. Enjoy this episode. Adel Host of ThePeel.news podcast Who are Ukrainians? Who are Kazakhs? History of Wars in Ukraine. Podcast Series: post-USSR SUPPORT: please click here and join our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

Drs. David Johnson (University of Texas) and Patrick Loehrer (Indiana University) host the first of two Oncology, Etc. episodes featuring Mr. Paul Goldberg, book author, investigative reporter, and Editor and Publisher of The Cancer Letter. In part one, Mr. Goldberg reflects on his two main interests − human rights and cancer, and his early career as a journalist and novelist. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pat Loehrer: Hi I'm Pat Loehrer, I'm the director of the Center for Global Oncology and Health Equity here at Indiana University. Dr. David Johnson: Hello, my name is David Johnson. I'm at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas. And we've got a great guest today and we're excited about the interview. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Yeah, it's very timely too, I think it's terrific. Before we go on to that, are there any recent books that you've read that you want to recommend? Dr. David Johnson: Yeah, actually, I do. It's somewhat related to our topic today. I just finished a book entitled, Presumed Guilty by Erwin Chemerinsky, who's the Dean of the Law School at the University of California, Berkeley. It's actually recommended to me by a lawyer friend. I think most of our audience knows the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments to the Constitution are the ones that provide protection for people accused of crimes. And I think most of us are familiar with the Warren Court in the 50s and 60s, which seemed to be a very, quote-unquote liberal court that provided many of the protections that you see on TV shows, police TV shows de including the Miranda protections, but as Chemerinsky points out in his book, that really is a historical aberration, that the Supreme Court from its founding really right through today is then on the opposite side of the fence in terms of protection to the accused can many landmark rulings over the last several years, including Terry versus Ohio and City of Los Angeles vs. Ryan, have actually provided protection and sanction stop in frisk activities, limited suits against police departments to institute reform, and even provided some benefit for the use of so-called lethal chokeholds. Smaller than I think, in light of what's happened over the last several months, really provided some insight, to me at least, about how the Supreme Court looks at the protection of the accused. I thought it was a very interesting book to read. And Chemerinsky does a great job of explaining these landmark cases in a way that simpleton like myself can understand them. So, I recommend it to you. I think you'd enjoy it. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Yeah, there's a book called “Just Mercy” by Bryan Stevenson. I'm not sure if you've ever had a chance to read that. It is an outstanding read. They made a movie out of it but if you get a chance to read the book, it's really terrific. Again, it talks a lot about the inequities in terms of how our court systems have prosecuted people of color for minor crimes compared to people that are in the majority here. But I think both of those would be great reads. Dr. David Johnson: Yeah, I haven't read it, but I will. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Yeah, it's terrific. Go for it. Going ahead in getting started, it's our great pleasure to have Mr. Paul Goldberg join us today. Anyone in oncology knows him. He is the editor of the Cancer Letter. Interestingly, he was born in Moscow and emigrated here to the United States at the age of 14, where he went to Virginia. He got his undergraduate degree at Duke in economics. And shortly thereafter, he worked in a newspaper in Reston, Virginia, where he met his future wife. I think from there, they went to the Wichita Eagle in Kansas. His wife was actually the daughter of the founder of what was to become the Cancer Letter, Jerry Boyd. He rose to associate editor and finally editor in 1994, and publisher and editor about a decade ago. The Cancer Letter is the go-to newspaper for us in oncology. Over 200 institutions subscribe. There's not a cancer center director in the country that does not look forward every week. One is to see if it's in there, you hope it isn't. And then if it is, you hope that there are really some platitudes in there about how wonderful you are, and then you can go ahead and read the rest of the article. The New York Times once said that everybody who's anybody in the cancer field reads this newsletter. He's won a number of awards, including the Washington DC professional chapter of the Society of Professional Dermatologists and some Gerald Loeb awards. His investigative work has uncovered some extraordinary events, including the Duke scandal with genomics, the ImClone scandal, as well as some of the workings of SIPRAD and MD Anderson, and I think he is really a flashlight that looks in the dark corners of our world, but also is there also to cheer on some of the accomplishments in oncology, and he knows Brawley and have written a book together, How We Do Harm. They're also doing the history of oncology together. He's a novelist. He's a nonfiction writer, and he's an extraordinary individual. And I think we're really looking forward to spending a few minutes with you here, Paul, thank you for joining us. Paul Goldberg: Thank you for inviting me. This is really a pleasure to spend some time with friends. Dr. Pat Loehrer: Well, by the time this gets aired, hopefully, the crisis in Ukraine will be over. But just last week, the Russians invaded Ukraine, and I think it's very timely to hear more about this and the fact that you grew up in Moscow and Russia. Tell us a little bit about your early life, your upbringing, your family background, and what prompted your family to immigrate here to the United States? Paul Goldberg: Well, it suddenly became possible and it was something that my father wanted to do. So, we just sort of ran as soon as we could, and certainly, I had kind of a fascinating time that I've been chewing on for many years as a novelist. In fact, they've just turned it into a novel, which will be published not this coming summer, but the following summer, it's called The Dissident. It's about the Soviet human rights movement and it's set in 1976. By then I was here, actually. But it's kind of like material that found me and really weirdly, it's also why I'm in oncology, where I'm covering oncology. My material kind of found me when I was in college, my drinking friend's mother, Ludmila Alexeiava was one of the founders of the Moscow Helsinki group. Interestingly, also, my first book was about the Moscow Helsinki watch group, which is really the beginning of human rights monitoring, which is really a staple, let's say the beginning of the NGOs. It's a staple of world order to rely on people within the country that it's being written about covering themselves in a way. It's kind of like free social media. And then, of course, enhanced greatly by social media. That was my beginning, but what was also interesting is that being a writer, and I really wanted to be a novelist, I did not want to then write nonfiction, but the material was so good that I had to jump in. Then I also had to, like, temporarily at least, make a living doing something else. So, my former father-in-law, my dad at the time, my father-in-law, now my late former father-in-law, terrific guy, Jerry Boyd, just hired me to do some work for him. I started some stuff and he used to brag that he's the only guy who's ever made money off son-in-law. Dr. David Johnson: But Paul, I'd be really interested to know, where did your interest in cancer begin? Was it with the Cancer Letter or had there been some interest prior to that? Paul Goldberg: Well, when I was working for the Wichita Eagle, I kind of got interested, I always gravitated towards stories about things like insurance, for example, the value of life, anything that had to do with these sorts of very complicated philosophical questions. That was kind of the beginning of my interest. That's why I didn't say, oh, no, this is too wonky. I don't want to have anything to do with this. Also, when people realize, it's always interesting, there's a fair amount of that in oncology. So, I was trying to find that, and just the complexity and the characters. You'll run into characters in oncology that you kind of wish to run into because you can have half an hour-long conversations or two-hour-long conversations or three-hour-long conversations with a lot of folks without really getting off-topic. I mean, I get a lot of criticism from the kids and my staff telling me that I'm nonlinear in my thinking, but that's linear in this field. It's also once you get into questions like ethics, that's really the fundamentals of oncology, and that's also the fundamentals of my other interest, which is human rights. It's also the artistic potential of this field is incredible. It just kind of grew on me but basically, it all began as a kind of a way to make up for unevenness in cash flow from writing books. And then it just became so great. If you want, I can tell you what the actual events were that made me just say, this is my field. Dr. David Johnson: Yeah, I'd love to hear that, tell us. Paul Goldberg: Two early ones. One of them was the beginning of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. I was initially taking a nap at the Senate hearing. I was editing a manuscript that was around 1992. I was editing a manuscript that got a little bit boring for me to just sort of listen to most things and I just fell asleep. And then I heard Fran Visco's voice booming through and I had no idea who Fran Visco was, nobody had any idea who Fran Visco was. He was giving her “Men in Suits” speech, which is like the beginning of the patient's movement in breast cancer. I kind of woke up and I pushed the button on my tape recorder and I got it. It was just unbelievably cool. I said, okay, so conversations that they had in the kitchens, wherever, there are these people who are talking about setting up a public movement, because there was never a public movement really of patients in oncology. For the most part, it just felt a little bit boring. I started working around the corners of oncology around 1985-86, really, 5 or 6 years later, I was writing other books. And I was bored a little bit because there were a bunch of white guys making decisions behind closed doors. They stopped smoking a few years before, but there were still white guys behind closed doors. Suddenly, this was something completely different. This was a public movement. And I could recognize the public movement because I'd seen them, I'd written about them, I did a story about them. So, there was that. Then came up about that very same time, really roughly the same time came the NSABP scandal. The Cancer Letter was writing fairly short stories. Now, it has been around since 1973. So, there's just this incredibly rigorous device for monitoring the history of oncology, you can just crack the thing. But it was different because Jerry didn't write 5000-word stories. Sometimes he did but mostly he didn't. But I can't really express myself briefly, I kind of have to go, and so, I started realizing that I could just return to this story over and over and over till I understood it, until everybody else got, so because of drilling, probably I must have written 40 stories on NSABP, maybe more. I don't know, over the years, maybe I'd written, but they just sort of said to me, hey, this is a field that's now politicized in a way that kind of sustains journalism. Controversy is unbelievably cool with this because here's a group of patients who are saying, we don't really care about NIH funding, in this case, but we care about just funding for breast cancer, and we want to do it our way. Let's do it through DOD. That was an amazing story to cover. Then there's the story of Bernie Fisher, who was like the great man of oncology, getting kind of pulled through the wringer on this thing, and it was awesome. Then another thing started happening. I started going to the meetings, mostly I loved ODAC. I always loved ODAC and I still love ODAC. I haven't missed an ODAC for maybe 40 years or something. And the same goes of course, for NCAB.  Basically, here is a discussion as a spectator sport. Oh, wow! I kind of got passionate about this whole thing. Like, covering ODAC like Dave Johnson's ODAC was hilarious. It was a comedy show. Basically, Dave was doing some really cool stuff. Really good material, not really quotable because the jokes were a little loud. Schilsky was hilarious in the ODAC. Raghavan was really funny on ODAC. And then there was Sledge. It was also very, very funny.  So, there was this sort of a discussion of this very complicated stuff that I just started quoting. I think I must have quoted Dave's joke. I think you learned from your grandfather, a box turtle on top of a fencepost didn't get there by accident.  Dr. David Johnson: It's correct.  Paul Goldberg: Yeah, it became an obsession to just follow the characters.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: But by the way, Paul, we did interview Rick Pazdur a short time ago, and Rick did not say that Dave was funny. I just want to let you know. There was no comment about that at all. So, there's just another side to this story.  Paul Goldberg: Well, the funniest bit was when Derek Raghavan once asked, we need a translator here for southern English, why does it need a box turtle on a fence and it gets there by accident? I don't think Dave explained that that time, but I have to look at my story because I would just get into these digressions of this. I think that was also where Rich Schilsky invented the term, toxic placebo.  Dr. David Johnson: Yes, we had a study, we had to review that showed, frankly, that the placebo was actually better in some ways than the actual alleged, like the drug but with a lot of side effects.  So, Paul, you've been in the midst of a lot of really interesting stories, some would say controversial ones. ImClone, Pat mentioned earlier, the Duke scandal, where do you get your information? Without divulging.  Paul Goldberg: Well, some of them I can't really divulge. But some of them I can. The beauty of the internet now is that people can come up with an email address and send me stuff and I can actually communicate with them, and I don't even have to protect my source because I have no idea who my source is.  There was one of these stories you've mentioned, I'm not going to say which one where I could just sort of dial in the question. Like, I could just email this person whose nickname could be Mickey Mouse. I mean, I think that was Mickey Mouse. So, I can just send the question to Mickey Mouse, what happened at XYZ? I'd like to see a picture of XYZ, and then Mickey Mouse would send me something.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: This is like all the president's men?  Paul Goldberg: It's a lot like that. It's much easier because you don't have to count back or whatever and hang up, although I've done that it's kind of funny. Yeah, sometimes things show up anonymously.  Dr. Pat Loehrer: Well, that concludes part one of our intriguing interview with the cancer letter Editor Paul Goldberg. Stay tuned for part two of this conversation, where we'll learn more about the literary works of Mr. Goldberg, who's developed these works outside of the Cancer Letter.  We'll see and hear about his incredibly important insight into the Russian Ukrainian conflict and much more. Thank you to all our listeners for tuning into Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO education podcast where we will talk just about anything and everything. If you have an idea for a topic or a guest you'd like to see on the show, please email us at education@asco.org.    Thank you for listening to the ASCO education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes. Please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the comprehensive education center at education that asco.org.  The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO the mention of any product service organization activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. 

On the 12th day of Christmas, the Warren Court gave to us:Loving Day on June 12th;11 December 1952 - final day of argument in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka;Nationalization of the first ten amendments;Nine concurring justices;(8-1 in Reynolds v. Sims);Seven birth control pills a week;Sixth Amendment right to counsel;Five Miranda rights;Fourth Amendment protections;Three expansions of due process;Brown v. Board of Education II;And one man, one vote.The full version of this premium episode is available exclusively to our Patreon supporters. To join, visit www.patreon.com/fivefourpod. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Will is joined by UChicago Law Professor David Strauss to discuss Congress's power to enforce the Constitution, recognized by Katzenbach v. Morgan, and whether there's still any room today for the principles of the Warren Court.Audio clips are from Oyez.org