Podcast appearances and mentions of william rehnquist

SERIES 2 EPISODE 120: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) SPECIAL COMMENT: OK which atrocity do you want to get enraged about first? The fact that yesterday I began by saying “today we begin to find out if we still have a Constitution” and turns out, sorry, I guess we don't – and the three liberal justices are complicit in that? Or, the fact that a partisan hack appointed by Trump managed to turn his nothing-burger investigation of Biden and the returned documents into Christmas-For-The-Fascists by inserting unwarranted, unjustifiable, indefensible opinions about the president's memory into it and THAT'S the headline and oh by the way where is the goddamned Attorney General on this? William Rehnquist's former clerk, Rod Rosenstein's former deputy, and a contributor to The Federalist has enough nerve finding nothing to prosecute but throwing into his report what sounds like a medical opinion about the President's memory but which is really just another Conservative law-breaker whipping out his schlong and putting it on the political scale. But how does the Attorney General let that document leave his department without demanding that irrelevant, unprofessional, indefensible section not be removed? Fire Merrick Garland. Now. Between this and his negligence in waiting two years to appoint a special prosecutor of Trump, he will bear the second most blame if Trump again seizes power. Meanwhile at the Supreme Court, disaster as Elena Kagan posits that enforcing the 14th Amendment gives one state the right to decide who the president will be, and Ketanji Brown Jackson falls for the "President is not really an OFFICER" fabrication. The analyst Elie Mystal thinks the vote could be 9-0 for Trump, in which case Kagan, Brown, and Sonia Sotomayor need to resign from the court. B-Block (23:17) IN SPORTS: Ex-coach Tommy Tuberville blasts Biden's memory and says he needs cues from reporters and 30 seconds later he can't remember the names of the teams and players in Sunday's Super Bowl and needs cues from a reporter. And the Oakland/Las Vegas A's saga worsens, while invoking the Oakland/Denver A's saga of 1977-80. (27:20) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Sarah Palin is back! And can now see Russian propaganda from her house. If every GOP accusation is actually a confession, Charlie Kirk and Marjorie Taylor Greene's theory of anti-impeachment GOP'ers being blackmailed with pedophilia is SOME confession. And of all the idiotic takes on the Robert Hur investigation of Biden, THE dumbest is by Mr. Astead W. Herndon of The New York Bothsidesist Times and CN-Bothesidesist-N. C-Block (34:32) FRIDAYS WITH THURBER: Since this podcast is one of five nominees for the best politics podcast at the upcoming iHeart Podcast Awards, it's fitting to read Thurber's great story of what happened when a rookie went on radio: "How To Relax While Broadcasting."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Republicans claim the election was stolen. They use those claims to justify suppressing people's right to vote. All of it happening amid a national reckoning on race. Rachel Maddow and Isaac-Davy Aronson tell the story of a time uncannily similar to our own – in the early 1960s. And how it's both a parallel to our present moment and the origin of conflicts playing out today.Featuring Guests:Rick Perlstein, historian, author of Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American ConsensusSherrilyn Ifill, Vernon Jordan Endowed Chair in Civil Rights at Howard University and former President and Director-Counsel of LDF.Jim Brosnahan, lawyer and author of Justice At Trial: Courtroom Battles and Groundbreaking Cases

EPISODE 179: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:42) SPECIAL COMMENT: The Fox-Dominion Trial is delayed until Tuesday so the two sides can discuss settling out of court. DON'T SETTLE! I'm like everybody else who ever worked for Rupert Murdoch, dated Laura Ingraham, and was asked to co-host a show with Tucker Carlson! I need to see them all in the witness box, under oath, WEEPING. Seriously, America could use the catharsis of an on-the-record verdict that Fox is not and never has been a news organization but even that isn't enough to destroy it. It needs juries doubling the demanded damages in this case AND Smartmatic to literally bankrupt the place (and survive appeals, including the Supreme Court, where Fox's lawyers think they'd win. The late tea leaves aren't good. The delay and story of settlement discussions was broken by another Murdoch outlet, The Wall Street Journal, AND the promised Sunday night attack on Fox by Mark Levin against Dominion and the judge mysteriously never happened. We don't want them snatching peace from the jaws of war. (8:20) Even when Clarence Thomas discloses something, he does it dishonestly. The latest revelations of his utter disregard for the Supreme Court's disclosure regulations. And could the vague precedent Richard Nixon used to force Abe Fortas to resign from SCOTUS in 1969 rather than face possible indictment, work with Clarence? In the interim, where is the Senate Judiciary hearing? (16:25) Speaking of which: looks like the Texas judge in the appalling abortion pill ruling lied to the Senate during his confirmation process. Dick Durbin needs to get to work and get Matthew Kacsmaryk charged for perjury. B-Block (22:51) IN SPORTS: The Oakland A's may not have much of a team, but they do provide every visiting team's television crew with the entertainment that is a live Possum living in the wall of the booth. And a wonderful farewell to Spencer, the official dog of The Boston Marathon (26:49) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: They'll be using Marjorie Barney Rubble Greene in a House campaign 1800 miles away. Turns out Nikki Haley's campaign doesn't know you can't count the same donation twice. And MAGA turns on Junior Trump. Remember, Buddy, this is how the French Revolution started. C-Block (31:55) EVERY DOG HAS ITS DAY: Anastasia needs a foster near Devore, CA to save her life (32:55) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: There must be 10,000 ceremonial first pitches at baseball games all around the country every year, and 9900 of them must be bad. Here is the advice I was given 17 years ago that can save you from being one of the bad ones. Best of all, it involves CHEATING.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Well if intimidating minority voters, issuing memos in support of school segregation, and moving into a neighborhood that bars Jews from owning homes there makes you a segregationist ……then William Rehnquist was a segregationist. A man who served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Until 2005. The same year Gorillaz released "Feel Good Inc." The year Wedding Crashers came out. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia premiered BEFORE this man left the bench. Please do not let your takeaway here be "man I feel old."If you're not a 5-4 Premium member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Premium-only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more, join at fivefourpod.com/support.5 to 4 is presented by Prologue Projects. Rachel Ward is our producer. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our production manager is Percia Verlin. Our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. You can follow the show on Twitter and Instagram @fivefourpod. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The seminal 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan limited the ability of public officials to silence their critics by successfully suing them for defamation. Sullivan made “American public officials more accountable, the American media more watchful, and the American people better informed,” said William Rehnquist, the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But Sullivan is increasingly under attack from politicians, activists, and even sitting Justices of the Supreme Court. They believe the decision went too far, enabling the news media and others to defame others with little-to-no consequence. On today's show, we are joined by lawyers Floyd Abrams (Cahill Gordon & Reindel), JT Morris (FIRE), and Matthew Schafer (Fordham Law) to discuss New York Times v. Sullivan and its future. Show notes: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) “Two Justices Say Supreme Court Should Reconsider Landmark Libel Decision” by Adam Liptak “How to Restore Balance to Libel Law” by Glenn Reynolds Florida HB 991, the anti-Sullivan bill Matthew Schafer's tweet thread on Florida's HB 991 “New York Times v. Sullivan and the Forgotten Session of the US Supreme Court” by Matthew Schafer “The Most Important Supreme Court Precedent for Freedom of the Press Is in Jeopardy” by Matthew Schafer and Jeff Kosseff   www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher.

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. 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

What areas of our lives are governed by constitutional law? When asked about what constitutional law is, Americans tend to think of notable Supreme Court cases such as the abortion law case Roe v. Wade or the Civil Rights landmark of Brown v. Board of Education. But vast swaths of our lives are governed by, of all things, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” This is just one of the fascinating facts that we learn from H. Jefferson Powell's book The Practice of American Constitutional Law (Cambridge UP, 2022). Powell robustly, movingly argues that those Americans who feel that the Supreme Court and constitutional law itself have become so politicized that justice is now unattainable and that raw power has replaced dispassionate legal analysis in our polity are mistaken. He contends that those who dwell in the world of the actual practice of constitutional law are people operating in good faith with identifiable “tool kits,” as he puts it. Powell shows how everyone involved has to determine if a legal case is even a matter of constitutional law specifically and if so, what part or parts of the Constitution are concerned and possibly being violated. One of the great strengths of the book is the delineation of who some of these actors are—from congresspeople to Department of Justice lawyers to legal advisors to presidents to judges at all levels to lawyers in the nonprofit advocacy sector. Powell shows how those engaged in the practice of constitutional law go about their work, be they giants of American jurisprudence such as John Marshall to unnamed state legislators of our own day. Powell makes the case that in spite of the normal human tendency to be influenced by our backgrounds and attitudes when thrashing out contentious matters, the practice of American constitutional law operates within clear parameters and procedures that to a large extent result in justice or at least a plausible attempt to achieve it. Powell's plea for a more sympathetic attitude towards judges, legislators and legal advocates is helped by the fact that his book is filled with vivid word-portraits of figures such as the Supreme Court justices Robert H. Jackson, William Rehnquist, David Souter (who comes across better in Powell's book than he does in many other accounts) and, of course, John Marshall. Powell's book is ideal for the non-lawyer who wants a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of constitutional law, who the players are and what aspects of constitutional law affect us in our daily lives. Powell fascinatingly shows that those include everything from guns in school zones to violence against women to the regulation of the length of trucks on state highways. Powell persuasively and engagingly makes his case that those who make cases are not malign influences twisting the law for partisan purposes but, by and large, honorable people doing their best to apply the text and thrust of the Constitution in defensible, sensible and yes, just, fashions. Let's hear from Professor Powell himself. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In part 1 of this week's episode of the National Crawford Roundtable the guys look into Biden's Classified Documents found in his Penn Center office, his garage and in 2 different places in his Delaware home.  And they review Special Counsel Robert Hur--good because he was Trump appointed and clerked for William Rehnquist; bad because he was part of the Mueller/Russia Collusion Hoax Team.  In part 2 of the podcast they discuss the 50th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  What do they think about it being overturned?  What about the arguments against abortion because of rape, incest, life and 'health' of the mother?  What are their thoughts about the 210 House Democrats voting against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act last week?

EPISODE 112: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:42) SPECIAL COMMENT: Garland has to go - and NOT because he appointed a Special Counsel; that'll probably work to Biden's advantage. We have to have somebody there to protect the Trump Investigation and Merrick Garland has again shown he's not smart enough to be trusted with doing it. Garland has to go because of a question nobody's asking: Who illegally leaked this confidential investigation to CBS News? How could it leak barely four days after the internal recommendation to name a Counsel? How could Garland have handed this case requiring ultimate secrecy to a Trump appointee? How could he NOW hand the case over to a DIFFERENT Trump appointee who used to clerk for Justice Rehnquist and has his own page as a "contributing expert" to The Federalist Society? We've all long had reasons to question Merrick Garland's intelligence and savviness, but these are the last straws. He's just no damn good at this, and right now we have no margin for error for a guy whose Department of Justice is a sieve, and doesn't understand the realities of the Trump cult. B-Block (16:48) SPECIAL COMMENT No. 2: This is the third time I have suggested Garland must either act or resign. In September, as Trump tried to block the Mar-a-Lago investigation via the "Special Master" there was a way around the stall for Garland. And he just sat back and did nothing. C-Block (25:30) SPECIAL COMMENT No. 3: And in October, Garland seemed to willfully ignore that week-long orgy of Trump's boastful confessions about the documents he stole. (40:45) It's so bad that there's even a James Thurber fable, the moral of which is the story of Merrick Garland. It's called "The Bear Who Let It Alone."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 548, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: Welcome To Denver 1: Located at 1340 Pennsylvania Street, the house of this storied Titanic survivor is preserved as it was in 1910. Molly Brown. 2: The Denver Zoo has the world's largest indoor habitat for this giant Indonesian lizard. the Komodo dragon. 3: The Kirkland Museum has examples of many decorative styles including this one, named for two types of handiwork. arts and crafts. 4: Denver supports two major morning papers: The Denver Post and this "News"paper founded in 1859. the Rocky Mountain News. 5: Lookout Mountain has a shrine dedicated to this first U.S. saint who founded a camp there for orphan kids. (Mother) Cabrini. Round 2. Category: Way Back In 1999 1: A 20-year-long restoration of this chapel, home to Michelangelo's "The Last Judgment", was wrapped up. the Sistine Chapel. 2: In August one of these, the size of Rhode Island, threatened ships between South America and Antarctica. an iceberg. 3: As part of a 10-year research project, the Atlanta Zoo got Lun-Lun and Yang-Yang, a pair of these. pandas. 4: The 100 jurors William Rehnquist swore in on January 7, 1999 were all members of this. the Senate. 5: This province's capital of Pristina wasn't so pristine; it was bombed by NATO. Kosovo. Round 3. Category: Talk Nonsense 1: This partner of "goo goo" in baby talk also means "foolishly enthusiastic". ga ga. 2: Completes the immortal words of Little Richard, "A wop bop a loo bop a lop...". bam boom. 3: In the dictionary this triple-talk phrase meaning "and so on" comes after bladder and before blanch. blah blah blah. 4: Children's taunt once used by fugitive Deborah Ulrich in a letter to police. nya, nya, nya. 5: On '70s TV this was Charo's version of making whoopee. cuchi cuchi. Round 4. Category: "De" Arts 1: The son of a surgeon, this director brought some gore to the screen in "Carrie" and "Scarface". (Brian) De Palma. 2: Seen here, the work of Tamara de Lempicka typifies this art style. art deco. 3: Now in his 70s, he designed Laura Bush's 2005 Inauguration Day wear. Oscar de la Renta. 4: His "Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun" is referred to as a tone poem. Debussy. 5: In 1964 LBJ gave this abstract expressionist the Medal of Freedom. Willem de Kooning. Round 5. Category: The Youngest 1: Entering at age 10 and taking 1 month to graduate, William Thompson was youngest student in this type of school. university. 2: Tho he was not even in his teens, Italians called Benedict IX "Papa" when he assumed this office. Pope. 3: In 1979, Marcus Hooper of England, a 12-years-old, became youngest person to swim this body of water. English Channel. 4: Though youngest of Jesse's 8 sons, he was the only 1 to become King of Israel. David. 5: Though under the constitutionally-required age of 30, in 1806 Henry Clay took this office. Senator. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia! Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/

A leaked draft of a possible majority opinion presented the possibility of a ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case negating – effectively overturning – the oft-debated Roe v. Wade decisions due to Constitutional Considerations has caused quite the political row. Despite the knee-jerk emotional reactions from the Far Left and early claims of victory from those who are anti-abortion, the true argument against the 1973 landmark SCOUTS decision is Constitutional: a violation of the 10th Amendment of the US Bill of Rights. Our panel from the Herb London Center for Policy Research delves into the true contestable issues surrounding the Roe v. Wade outcome. The seven Supreme Court Justices who voted in favor of the "Jane Roe" legal team justified their decision citing the 14th Amendment's "Due Process" statute while adding not allowing a women to have an abortion would violate that same amendment's declaration the government can not infringe on people's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." Of the two dissenting Justices, William Rehnquist argued the 14th amendment does not protect abortion (citing legal issues) while Justice Byron White says the decision violated the rights of states to set such laws (A10). Our panel takes a deeper dive:LCPR President LTC Tony ShafferLCPR Senior Fellow Jay Homnick LCPR Senior Fellow Marine Capt. Bill Heinzalmann If you enjoy our Thought to Action videos, please comment and subscribe to our channelAlso, visit our Thought to Action Teespring Store: https://my-store-10084335.creator-spring.com/ Follow the London Center on Twitter: @TheLCPR Thank you for watching; please feel free to comment, share and subscribe. For exclusive content, sneak previews and access to our full Ask Us Anything Sessions (and future live virtual events) - please join our Patreon community: https://www.patreon.com/thoughttoaction Thought to Action is presented by the London Center for Policy Research https://www.londoncenter.org​

Justice Breyer's unusually worded “resignation letter” raises a host of constitutional questions that perhaps he did not intend.  Who is asking them?  We are.  A cascade of confusion - from resignation to confirmation to reconsideration to commission to oath.  The Biden Administration says we should ask William Rehnquist about it, because he told us the answer.  Except he didn't.  Listen to it all, and while we're at it, we also wind up our clips from the hearings with contrasting Senators (understatement) - and Dean Vik Amar drops in to help with it all.  A jam-packed episode this week!

Accommodationists Accommodationists, in contrast, argue along with Justice William O Douglas that "we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Furthermore, as observed by Chief Justice Warren E Burger in Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970) with respect to the separation of church and state: "No perfect or absolute separation is really possible; the very existence of the Religion Clauses is an involvement of sorts—one that seeks to mark boundaries to avoid excessive entanglement." He also coined the term "benevolent neutrality" as a combination of neutrality and accommodationism in Walz to characterize a way to ensure that there is no conflict between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Burger's successor, William Rehnquist, called for the abandonment of the "wall of separation between church and State" metaphor in Wallace v Jaffree (1985), because he believed this metaphor was based on bad history and proved itself useless as a guide to judging. David Shultz has said that accommodationists claim the Lemon test should be applied selectively. As such, for many conservatives, the Establishment Clause solely prevents the establishment of a state church, not public acknowledgements of God nor 'developing policies that encourage general religious beliefs that do not favor a particular sect and are consistent with the secular government's goals'. In Lynch v Donnelly (1984), the Supreme Court observed that the "concept of a "wall" of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor, but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any." Free exercise of religion. The acknowledgement of religious freedom as the first right protected in the Bill of Rights points toward the American founders' understanding of the importance of religion to human, social, and political flourishing. The First Amendment makes clear that it sought to protect "the free exercise" of religion, or what might be called "free exercise equality." Free exercise is the liberty of persons to reach, hold, practice and change beliefs freely according to the dictates of conscience. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits government interference with religious belief and, within limits, religious practice. "Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order." The Free Exercise Clause offers a double protection, for it is a shield not only against outright prohibitions with respect to the free exercise of religion, but also against penalties on the free exercise of religion and against indirect governmental coercion. Relying on Employment Division v Smith (1990) and quoting from Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc v Hialeah (1993) the Supreme Court stated in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc v Comer (2017) that religious observers are protected against unequal treatment by virtue of the Free Exercise Clause and laws which target the religious for "special disabilities" based on their "religious status" must be covered by the application of strict scrutiny. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Jessica Taylor is the Senate Editor for the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter and recently made history as the first woman to be a Senior Author for the Almanac of American Politics. Jessica talks her small-town Tennessee roots, her path to political journalism, her early thoughts on the 2022 Senate map, and a deep-dive into both the history of The Almanac and her ground-breaking role at that hallowed institution.IN THIS EPISODE…Jessica traces her interest in political journalism to both her mother and father…How a neighbor from Arkansas made an important impact on a 7-year old Jessica…Jessica's first job working at her local paper…Jessica's career goals take shape at Furman University…Advice Jessica gives to young aspiring journalists…Jessica's controversial tenure as editor of her college paper…Jessica's first job in DC political journalism…Jessica talks her time working with both Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook…Jessica shares a memorable “candidate interview” from a now high-profile elected official…Jessica explains the “race ratings” that are a big part of her job…Jessica's early take on the 2022 Senate map…Jessica talks the history of the Almanac of American Politics…A couple of Jessica's favorite details she's learned researching for The Almanac…AND…Lamar Alexander, John Armstrong, Judy Bainbridge, Michael Barone, Cheri Beasley, Ted Budd, Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Bill Clinton, Rich Cohen, Roy Cooper, Ted Cruz, Howard Dean, Val Demings, David Dewhurst, Doug Ducey, Jennifer Duffy, John Edwards, The Elizabethton Star, Ally Flinn, Friday Night Lights, Nathan Gonzales, Jeff Jackson, Meg Kinnard, Kristin Kobes du Mez, Charlie Mahtesian, Pat McCrory, nationaljournal.com, the New York Times, The Paladin, David Perdue, Rob Portman, Kyrsten Sinema, Grant Ujifusa, Herschel Walker, Amy Walter, Dave Wasserman, the Watergate Building, William Rehnquist, & MORE!

Host Ryan Wrecker takes your calls on Trump leaving office, voting, and the latest in politics. Lastly, Ryan previews an executive order from President Trump requesting an ‘American Heroes’ Statue Garden with 244 names. If you like what you hear, we're live weeknights on KMOX 1120AM. We welcome your calls at 800-925-1120. Like and follow on Facebook: www.facebook.com/RyanWreckerRadio/  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Content warning: police brutality and anti-Black violence. Before you can sue a police officer under Section 1983, you have to pass a test—essentially demonstrating that your claim is good enough to proceed. It used to be that this test had four seemingly simple parts. But then Chief Justice Rehnquist came along. And the question is this—was William Rehnquist a reasonable man? Drinks: The Baldy and Blood Hound as originally created by Tom Bullock, the first Black author of a cocktail book. His book, The Ideal Bartender, is available for purchase in various reprints or for free via Project Gutenberg. Further reading for this episode: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-1989-supreme-court-ruling-is-unintentionally-providing-cover-for-police-brutality/2020/06/08/91cc7b0c-a9a7-11ea-94d2-d7bc43b26bf9_story.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/colorado-fleeing-felon-rule.html Justice for Elijah McClain Backstory Sign the petition Resource for donating and contacting Colorado officials If you're new to the fight for racial and economic justice, or if you're looking for reading material, places to donate, and materials with which to educate yourself, please see below. Opportunities for White People in the Fight for Racial Justice Where to Donate Black Lives Matter What You Can Do (Megathread) A Guide to Allyship and Why "All Cops Are Bastards" How to Support During the Black Lives Matter Movement Fighting Anti-Blackness Resource List (Harvard University) Non-Optical Accompliceship Toolkit --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/drunklawschool/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/drunklawschool/support

Last week hearings in the U.S. Senate began for Supreme Court nominee Judge Bret Kavanaugh. In this edition of the Nixon Now Podcast, we look back at the justices President Nixon appointed to the highest court, and the challenges they faced in their respective confirmation processes. Our guest today successfully shepherded through arguably one of the most consequential nominees in the past half century, Justice William Rehnquist. He did this not once, but twice: when Justice Rehnquist became associate justice in 1971, and again when he became chief justice in 1986. Wally Johnson began his career as a special attorney in the organized crime section of the criminal division at the Department of Justice, ultimately leading the organized crime task force in Miami. He was minority counsel of the Senate judiciary subcommittee on criminal laws and procedures under ranking minority member, Senator Roman Hruska. In 1970, he was appointed by Attorney General John Mitchell as associate attorney general responsible for managing the Powell and Rehnquist confirmations before the Senate judiciary committee. From 1972 to 1973, he served in the White House in the vaunted congressional liaison office. From 1973 to 1975, Johnson served as assistant attorney general for land and natural resources. Today he remains a successful lawyer living in Cody Wyoming. Photo: President Nixon presents Lewis Powell (shown on the left of RN) and William Rehnquist (on right of RN) framed gifts recognizing their confirmation as Supreme Court justices on December 22, 1971. (Richard Nixon Presidential Library) Music: "I Fought the Law" by The Clash (1977). Interview by Jonathan Movroydis

Vi kör mer modern historia och går igenom det kaotiska presidentvalet 2000 mellan Bush och Gore som avgörs i Florida och HD. Det kommer att handla om konstiga presidentval, en valkampanj om ingenting, krångligt röstande, en rymdpenna, svenskättlingen William Rehnquist, en skjutglad Cheney, förtroendetapp för HD och Chuck Norris givetvis! Glöm inte att prenumerera på podcasten! Ge oss gärna betyg på iTunes! Följ oss på Facebook (facebook.com/stjarnbaneret), twitter (@stjarnbaneret) eller Instagram (@stjarnbaneret) Kontakta oss på epost: stjarnbaneret@gmail.com

Can I Write That Off with Craig Cody; Ever thought about what you can write as a business expense Craig goes into some true but seldom used write off strategies. You might just be amazed you are going to love the topic is “Can I write that off?”   Today I have a returning yes because of you guys. His name is Craig Cody and Craig is a certified tax coach, certified public accountant, business owner and former New York City police officer with 17 years’ experience on the force in addition to being a certified public accountant for the past 15 years.   He's also a certified tax coach and as a certified tax coach Craig belongs to a selective of group of tax practitioners throughout the country who undergo extensive training and continued education and various tax planning techniques and strategies to become as well as remain certified Unser. With his organization.   Craig has co-author Amazon best seller book Secrets of the Tax-Free Life and today I'm excited because this is one that you are going to love is the topic is “Can I write that off?” Craig thanks so much for being with us today.   Oh, thank you very much for having me today.   I'm psyched. We got such a great response to you being on here. The last time that this is really I know is going to be fun. I know it's always fun for me but it be fun for a lot of our guests too. Can I write that off? Boy that is probably a thousand different things or a thousand different questions we could ask.   I don't know if I've ever been asked that question before. Can I write that off? First you have to get everything out of your shoe box and put it in order before I can tell you whether you can write that off right.   That's right.   Sometimes when I tell them yes, they're actually really surprised. Yeah. Because they're just grasping a store straw they’re just open right. Exactly, exactly.   OK here's what I want to ask you, and then what is the most unique thing that someone has asked you Can I write that off? Oh it was probably some type of cosmetic surgery.   And I'll leave it at that. Leave it to the imagination. OK.   Well actually it was work induced which was even strange and not boring not boring.   I'm sure it's not so I'm sure that. And I know a lot of people.   You know it's getting that time of the year. And you know as they go through all their income expenses and stuff and they're gone I'm sure of that I can write it off or I wish I can write that off.   What are some of the things that you want to tell us about that.   Well some of the unique things. Let's talk about OK. You know can I write off my pool? you know. And that's one of them when they're shocked when I say yeah well if you have a home office you can write off your pool because you're allowed to have a home athletic facility for the use of your employees and you and their families. So that money is typically a little bit of a shocker.   So, what if you live up north and you have a game.   If it's a gym you could write it off. Not a game. OK or a pool or even if it was an ice skating rink we have a few of those. You could write that off. Yeah. So, you could write off you actually depreciate the actual pool and you could write off the operating expenses. Sweet. You have just had to document everything. A lot of things just come down to making sure you document what you're supposed to.   So, one of the other fun things a lot of business owners come up to you and say give us a list. Some are probably crazy but that's OK.   Yes, some of some of them that they can't write off they come up to me for. But you know there's a lot of times they'll come up with a medical expense items and you know you know can I write this off while you can write it off but you're not going to get the benefit of it unless we do it a certain way.   Another thing that's actually interesting is if your child goes to a special school and maybe they have ADHD or ADD or there's some reason that they have to go to a special school that could actually be a legitimate medical deduction and we could create a medical expense reimbursement plan so that can work. Well we just had a client that had to pay huge fees for rehab that they thought they were going to write off to schedule late and moves like thirty thousand dollars of deduction.   So, we were able to show them how to do it the right way and take four hundred thousand dollars and such. So, you need to ask. You know that's really what it comes down is she should ask and you should have somebody that's you know willing to look into things and not just shut their mind out and is willing to invest in education and learning what's out there that you can do. There's so many things out there. So many things and that's why when we work with clients sometimes they're shocked or wait I could write my pool off. Yeah you can.   Yeah that's why it's so important to have someone like yourself as a member of a team because you are a team member right. Everybody   should have a team. You know we you know we spend so much time working on our businesses, building up businesses you know can't do it alone. We need to concentrate on what you're really good at and have other people deal with the stuff that you're not really good at.   Yeah that's the main thing. So, what I'm going to have I kind of friend who has a multimillion dollar business I'm going to think about some of the things that actually had so like you if you have a boat you could possibly right to potentially you could write that off for some time. But, will you advise it? You really have to be careful on that. OK. But typically, if somebody buys a boat and it can actually be a second home and they can write interest they could write the interest off on their own schedule day.   So, there are rules with that that a lot of people watch you fall on this subject. That could be a good thing. You know there's a million-dollar limit on mortgage interest and stuff like that but they might that might change in the next 24 hours might become a loan.   I figured they might go higher. I don't think so. I mean I think that tax money. Looks like big business is really going to get a big bulk of whatever this tax savings going to be. Well that's a whole another story for a whole another day.  Where that comes from. Yes eventually. So OK. Let's let's keep moving on. What can I write off stuff that most people don't even think about? Most business owners. Yes.   I mean people don't think about their home office. They definitely don't think about that. Some people do but most people don't. They don't think about you know their medical expenses they don't think about how to properly do that.   They don't think about how to write off their kids. You know Camp high school tuition, hockey you know hockey lessons are hockey camp and stuff like that. All right. So, there's a way to do that by hiring your kids and then you pay them directly and then you let them pay for the camp or the school directly out of their bank account.   Well I you know I brought that up to son in law the other day because he is a real estate agent. Of course, he's technically in his own business. I say, you know what I said your kids again old enough where you can hire them and make them pay for their own stuff and he goes. Yeah, the last time I talked my accountant about that he said there was no benefit to it. I said “fire him!”   Right. Exactly. Get somebody that thinks properly. Right. Exactly. That's very true because if he's a realtor and he's a schedule C that's a home run. Yeah, I said you know just there's stuff that they can do you know for your business that you can pay them and let them start paying their own bills. Right. and Write the whole things off.   Exactly. Make nondeductible expenses deductible and you know I spend a lot of time going to you know advance trainings and learn this stuff. Yeah so you know the typical CPA has to do about 30 to 40 hours a year in training. I do easily two weeks if not more. Right. Because now you're learning the ins and outs of what can and can't be done.   And you think well I'm not going to go there. But no, I will go there. You would think that everyone would go for that. But there again that's why we have different personalities, we have different thought processes, and different things I just need to find the right person who will work with you on your side. That's all it really is. Exactly it's kind of like working versus a new business. That’s amazing.   Yeah. So, we have yes, we have hiring the kids we have the home office we have them your current truck expenses and if you have a home office now or you travel from one office to your other office becomes deductible where you can have, too often you can have a home office and another office and do both of them. Oh yes so let's just say you know in my case I spend easily two hours every morning and answering e-mails and doing stuff. Plus, you know easily two hours’ time on the weekends.   It's always you spend 14 hours a week working from that home office. Then it falls under the rules and it's qualified. OK so and most people I speak to you know that when I tell you I got to do 14 hours they look at me like 14 hours? You know I'm working 60 hours or 40 hours in my regular office and I'm home and I'm doing e-mails, I'm doing billing, I'm doing this. You know that's a drop in the bucket.   So yeah that's a huge thing because I was there again. Not that I have two offices but I was always kind of under the impression you could only do one. No. Now well think about if you're a real estate company and you have multiple offices. Yeah. Why can't you. You're allowed to deduct the rent on all those offices and all the expenses that are associated with same principal to dental practices. So, and we all do a lot of administrative stuff when we're sitting at home or whether it's you know in an office or you know the TV which is which means you know I'm working in your office so you should be doing it in your office in front of the TV in your office. Right   Right. That’s why I have one right here. So, have. Exactly. Matter of fact I don’t even know if it works but haven't thrown it out yet. So yeah. So that's a bunch of things that you can do. Then we have the you know you're about to rent your home out 14 days a year and not pay income tax on that money. So that's an interesting thing that is very interesting.   Could you rent it to your company for a Christmas party or a new year's party or any other kind of party during the year. You can do that or you could rent it as a you know especially with air BMB that's really popular. Yeah but you want to make sure you don't go off with the14 days because if you go over the 14 days it's all taxes. All that's taxable yes. So is it 14 days total or is that total OK. Those 14 days total for the year. So, you know that has just brought up like for where I live every once in a while, you know you have a super bowl that comes here you could rent out your house for the weekend for megabucks.   And you don't have to pay that. You know I had a client that used to rent the house in Brooklyn for movies and they used to pay me that was wonderful they were paying a $5000 a day. So conceivably if she was able to get on that rented for 14 days you know she would have made you know a lot of money.   Yeah. Would have paid part of her mortgage right. And she would not have had to claim any of it legally on a tax return. Oh, I love that. And you just got to be careful that you don't go over the 40 days at least. So, you need two guys who everyone is listening as you need to think about how you can do that in different venues. You know if you can't rent it out, you know rent it out for your party you have an associate renting out for a little party. I don't know it doesn't matter just get. Figure out how you can get the 14 days in there because it could it could be worth it to you.   Exactly. Exactly. So, but yeah there's some interesting stuff out there. And I think what everybody needs to do is they need to communicate with the CPA and stay in touch with them and make sure that they stay in touch with each other. So, you know they could all help each other keep more of what they're making.   Yeah that's the key. I always say that’s where the profit that you never see is when you pay to the IRS. so let's get to keep more of it. Exactly. That's the that's probably the easiest profit to make. You know rather than going out and getting more clients, you know they get more of it. Yeah. Yeah because you were thinking about paying less and now you get to keep it. that correct at all. That would be nice if we keep it all.   But the thing happens no right as much as that that's legally allowed. So that we can have more fun and do whatever we want with it. Yeah there was. Right. There was one the Supreme Court justices that quote it says there's nothing wrong with structuring your so use to pay the least amount of tax possible. Who was that guy? OK I have to because I knew it. I want to it wasn't Holmes was it?   No I'm thinking it might have been Marshall but I'm not exactly sure I was OK. I remember that. Yeah I remember that reading bunch stuff. It's my responsibility, it's my job to pay As little as possible because it's written in the tax code so that I can I just have to be able to know where it is and what it is. And that's why again we're going to talk to people like Craig so that we cannot do that. OK. Have that team member.   Exactly and it was actually William Rehnquist. There is nothing wrong with the strategy to avoid the payment of taxes. The Internal Revenue Code doesn't prevent that. That's a statement from Justice cool yeah. So that's pretty awesome. I love that. OK. What’s another really weird thing that someone’s asked you if they can write off that was available. That was available. That was available.   You know cosmetic dentistry you know somebody had to get new guess you want to call them false teeth implants. And you know the first time I heard it, you know like, that can’t be deductibles. I go back to my grandparents and with the old dentist and it is you could actually write it off as legitimate medical experts. While I would think it would apply to certain industries. But what the heck. You know I'd like fewer news anchor act or something like that than it would be part of your income producing.   Right but if I don't have if I don't have teeth I can't chew food so I can't eat so I can't survive. So that's another way of looking at it. Yeah pretty wild. Yes, sometimes just a matter of the way you document different things but I think that one's a pretty straightforward one was the first time I heard it I was a little surprised. You know I've gotten some weird ones over the times and you know you know my dog obviously you can't deduct the cost of your dog now you have. If it's a Rottweiler and it's in a junkyard Yeah that's a different story because every army of service. Exactly. OK. But that's not a huge cost for pet poodle at home. No you can't deduct that. What about if you tried to pay them by the hour and they'd have to have a social security number. There social security number. I have a lot of fun with these huh? People try, “Can I claim my dog as dependent?” NO. Well you feed them then. And that’s a statement from Joe Justice.   I think the biggest one was the pool is something that people were very surprised about or the school. Yes. If they have to go to a special school that you know those are typically pretty expensive things and they could save you a lot of money. Yes, specially some schools. I mean yeah, I can imagine. I mean some schools are expensive as expensive as college.   Yeah some of them are more expensive I think on what the school is for it to be very expensive. Same with rehab can be very expensive. And the ability to structure your fast seat to write that off as a good thing. Yeah. Wow that's amazing. Again, that's just knowing the right people who know the right things. That will put your whole tax perspective into profit and put into profit making mode. Right. And I mean I guess I could throw a little thing in it that's really more towards contractors and rehabbers and stuff like that is you know domestic production activities deduction. What’s that.   It's basically a deduction that was meant to keep jobs in the U.S. versus going overseas and giving these factories that say OK a credit or a deduction for juicing goods in the United States I guess as the bill was written it was expanded to include construction or remodelers and stuff like that and it basically if you take that they called Qualified productions activity income and you take then your qualified activities expenses and you get your net income.   You take 9% of that. You get a deduction on your personal returns. If let's just say you're a new home builder or you do spec and you know you have five hundred thousand dollars in net profit you know you can wind up with like $45,000. deduction. It's very often missed. Wow. Yeah wow that's pretty good.   Wow. Wow. One thing you know that's why it pays to go and you know go to conferences and learn and socialize. Talk to other people that are doing different things. People love to share ideas. Well yeah, and then that’s what makes you the expert in your market place Exactly. You know the go to guy and you know the little you know more than your average CPA because you've taken the time to become the expert just like we tell you know our contract to become the expert take that extra time to become you know the certification or you know become the expert learning more from an expert in their field so that they become now they become the go to guy like you become the go to guy to contractors they've become the go to guy to their clients.   Yes, exactly exactly. So, it's yeah it's it's a consistency in in the whole growing your business standpoint. Yes. I think that kind out of odd type of questions that's your standard questions that they asked us. So what's the funniest on that you've ever got that just flat out and now she was. Somehow, she called the office and she was a lady of the evening. OK. And she had questions about what she was able to dock or what she wasn't able to dock.   Of course they asked her are you incorporated? And you know the interesting thing is even if you're performing an illegal activity is supposed to pay tax on it my. Yes I know. I know. Yeah that's the funny thing. Yeah. Well even I mean that's why they're trying to make it a cashless society so they can track all the money so they can track everything. Right exactly. Exactly. They don't know.   I'm not sure we're bitcoin fits into all that and that and crypto currency but we'll see. Yeah I am. That's. It's kind of funny how many experts there are crypto currency now. It’s amazing. I mean they're popping up every day. I know. I'll let them pop up down to. I’m afraid to even consider that. But that's me. That's so. Hey Craig you know this a real awesome man. I'm just. Can we. Can I write that off? That's been a lot of fun today. How can how can our listeners get in touch with you so they can get more of your information and to actually contact you personally if they want you to help or consider you being on their team. Sure.   Well they can go to our website. It's Craigcodyandcompany.com. and actually if they go to craigcodyandcompany.com/secretweapon They can get a free copy paper copy of our book. Almost most recent book “The 10 most expensive tax mistakes that cost business owners thousands”. They could also call at 5 1 6 6 9 4 0 5 1 or email it craig@ccodingcpa.com.    And I'm sure you will have all that information in your show notes. Yes we will make sure everything goes was on our show notes so everyone can go to and download and get whatever information they need. Excuse me I'm losing my voice here. Awesome. So that's has really been fun. I'm glad that you are all our guests today and we got talking and I'm glad that you are going to be at the podcast . Yes. That sounds like a fun thing.   You may visit Craig’s website by visiting the link below: www.craigcodyandcompany.com www.craigcodyandcompany.com/secretweapon   email: craig@ccodingcpa.com     There are so many ways to do almost free marketing you just have to think about it or you could just go to the web site and pick up the free download.  4 Hot Marketing Strategies That Can Flood Your Business with Customers  If you have a story to tell and would like to be a guest on this podcast email my assistant Shell at Shell@contractorssecretweapon.com   and she will send you our guest sheet.     Our sponsors  Would you like your phone to ring more with qualified buyers people looking to buy now? Then let’s make that happen. Best Home Services Leads is dedicated to making your phone ring with qualified buyers wanting to buy now. Go to and fill out the form to get more information.       http://contractorssecretweapon.com/money    How about 100 free postcards sent out to your best prospective customers. Radius Bomb sends out hyper targeted, laser focused postcards using a map while sitting in your under ware at your kitchen table then go to http://contractorssecretweapon.com/radiusbomb    Painting Contractors, get up to a 24% better response rate just for having the right memorable telephone number 1-800-PRO-PAINTER.Check out your area before someone beats you to it and it’s not available. https://www.1800propainter.com/ 

So we had to push back the second half of our sad movie list because - did you see the Academy Awards?!?! Yes, the Hollywood bubble was burst a little bit this week and we are here to sift through the wreckage. We also talk Meg and Shane's dream trip to the temple of basketball, the death of the William Rehnquist of daytime TV, and Bethany's very low Redbox standards. Also, Australian clapping, why CPS might need to be called to protect Moana, and the ULTIMATE "you WISH you still had me" moment. #Afflacus #HeavensDoneWaiting #TSAlovin #kubball

With the recent passing of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and the hotly contested debate over the future of the Supreme Court, we look at President Nixon's judicial philosophy and his actions to shape the nation's highest court. Nixon appointed four justices including the influential William Rehnquist, who served for more than 30 years on the bench. To discuss this topic with the Nixon Foundation is Kevin McMahon, the John R. Reitemeyer Professor of Political Science at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. His books include "Reconsidering Roosevelt on Race" and his most recent "Nixon's Court: His Challenge to Judicial Liberalism and Its Political Consequences." For this book he was awarded the Erwin N. Griswold Book Prize, and was given the opportunity to deliver a lecture at the Supreme Court of the United States. Interview by Jonathan Movroydis.