Podcasts about yale law

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

You might want to think of this totally gonzo episode as the 3WHH-Squared, as it was taped live during happy hour Friday night in a very noisy Washington Hilton Hotel at the annual conference of the Federalist Society, where John and I are present and making a general nuisance of ourselves. Lucretia was supposed to be in Hawaii this week on some kind of junket or super-secret mission, but the government shutdown interposed itself.) As we did last year, we simply invited a handful of legal luminaries to drop by our not-so-quiet corner, with cocktails in hand, to kick around whatever is on our mind. We were delighted to have Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals drop by briefly before having to run off to host a dinner for his clerks; Roger Pilon, long-time director of constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, hung around to heckle everyone; Ilan Wurman, one of the rising young stars of the conservative legal academy, fell into our snare as well, and Hadley Arkes, who needs no introduction here. (Would any such gathering be complete without Hadley dropping by? To ask the question is to answer it, of course, as any disquisition on necessary truths from Aristotle to Kant would know.)The highlight of this gaggle was Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University (and one of John's principal mentors at Yale Law way back when, which may explain a few things), to talk about his brand new and highly readable book, Born Equal: Remaking America's Constitution, 1840-1920. Since we were recording out in the open at the Washington Hilton, this episode is a bit . . . authentic, to so speak. We ask the indulgence of listeners to its many irregularities.

Join host Kathryn Rubino on The Jabot podcast with Yale Law's Judith Resnik. Discover how historical detention practices challenge democracy today. Explore her new book, "Impermissible Punishments," for insights on humane reforms. A thought-provoking must-listen!   Episode Highlights Discussion of upcoming book, "Impermissible Punishments" Journey to Academia: From Law School to Professor Prison as a Social Service: Complexities and Paradoxes Judicial Debate on the Permissibility of Whipping in Prisons Historical Roots: The League of Nations and Prison Standards Evolution of Prisoners' Rights and Dignity Importance of Recognizing Incarcerated as Rights Bearers Global Perspective: Common Problems in Prisons Worldwide The Cost of Maintaining the Current Prison System Inhumane Practices and the Need for Solid Lines on Punishments Changing Nature: Prison is a Construct, Not a Standard Solitary Confinement: A Physical and Emotional Burden Episode Sponsored By  https://www.lexisnexis.com/lexisplus   Links and Resources https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo243487113.html  https://impermissiblepunishments.law.yale.edu/  judith.resnik@yale.edu    Subscribe, Share and Review To get the next episode subscribe with your favorite podcast player. Subscribe with Apple Podcasts Follow on Spotify Leave a review on Apple Podcasts

It's election week in the U.S., and while many eyes are on the polls, we're revisiting a conversation that reminds us why voting matters in the first place. In this rebroadcast, Yale Law professor Owen Fiss reflects on his work enforcing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the courts' role in protecting democracy, and why casting a ballot remains both a privilege and a duty. ----- After 50 years as a professor at Yale Law School, Owen Fiss says his students are still idealistic and passionate about the rights won in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a young lawyer in the late 1960s, Fiss worked with the Department of Justice to implement those laws. A classroom discussion in the spring of 2020 prompted him to draw upon his legal expertise and decades of experience to produce his new book, Why We Vote.  In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, Fiss speaks with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the paradox of the court system–the least democratic branch of government–having the responsibility of safeguarding the right to vote. He looks back on his work with the DOJ in southern states, and his time as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall (then on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York) and Justice William Brennan.  Rawles and Fiss also discuss recent threats to the electoral system and right to vote, including the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Fiss shares his thoughts about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and whether former President Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot on that basis.  While every book he writes is for his students, Fiss says, he hopes Why We Vote can impress upon a broader audience the privilege and duty of voting and participating in a democracy.

It's election week in the U.S., and while many eyes are on the polls, we're revisiting a conversation that reminds us why voting matters in the first place. In this rebroadcast, Yale Law professor Owen Fiss reflects on his work enforcing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the courts' role in protecting democracy, and why casting a ballot remains both a privilege and a duty. ----- After 50 years as a professor at Yale Law School, Owen Fiss says his students are still idealistic and passionate about the rights won in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a young lawyer in the late 1960s, Fiss worked with the Department of Justice to implement those laws. A classroom discussion in the spring of 2020 prompted him to draw upon his legal expertise and decades of experience to produce his new book, Why We Vote.  In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, Fiss speaks with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the paradox of the court system–the least democratic branch of government–having the responsibility of safeguarding the right to vote. He looks back on his work with the DOJ in southern states, and his time as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall (then on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York) and Justice William Brennan.  Rawles and Fiss also discuss recent threats to the electoral system and right to vote, including the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Fiss shares his thoughts about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and whether former President Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot on that basis.  While every book he writes is for his students, Fiss says, he hopes Why We Vote can impress upon a broader audience the privilege and duty of voting and participating in a democracy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Corporations are on track to spend more than $1.3 trillion on stock buybacks this year—money that could have gone toward higher wages, innovation, or community investment. That's the real-life Trillion Dollar Heist at the center of our new comic from Civic Ventures, which follows Marta, a janitor who interrupts a corporate board meeting just as executives plot their next billion-dollar buyback spree. This week, we're resharing our 2019 conversation with Senator Cory Booker, who explains how stock buybacks went from illegal market manipulation to one of the biggest drivers of inequality.  Read the Trillion Dollar Heist Comic: https://bindings.app/read/7mINYO2H This episode originally aired February 26, 2019.  Senator Cory Booker is a Democratic lawmaker from New Jersey who has served in the U.S. Senate since 2013. A Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law graduate, he began his career on the Newark City Council before serving as mayor from 2006 to 2013. In the Senate, Booker has focused on criminal justice reform, economic opportunity, climate action, and protecting civil and LGBTQ+ rights. Social Media: Marta  Paul Constant  Sarah Star Litt Alan Robinson  Pippa Bowland AndWorld Design Mary P. Traverse Further reading:  Trillion Dollar Heist Comic Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Threads: pitchforkeconomics Bluesky: @pitchforkeconomics.bsky.social Twitter: @PitchforkEcon, @NickHanauer, @civicaction YouTube: @pitchforkeconomics LinkedIn: Pitchfork Economics Substack: ⁠The Pitch⁠

Preview: Rick Fisher discusses Victor Gao, a Chinese national, Yale Law graduate, and "agitprop" likened to Tokyo Rose, who delivers deniable threats for Beijing. Referred to as a "Han envoy," Gao recently claimed on Chinese state television that China now possesses the world's most powerful military. 1959

We sit down with Arielle Galinsky, CEO and co-founder of The Legacy Project Incorporated. Arielle is not only a dual-degree graduate student at Yale Law and Harvard's Kennedy School, but she's also a passionate advocate for intergenerational connections and storytelling.The Legacy Project, which now spans 25 college campuses, began from Arielle's personal drive to preserve the life stories of older adults—a mission fueled by loss in her own family and a desire to bridge the gap between generations. In our conversation, Arielle shares how the Legacy Project grew from high school interviews to a fast-growing nonprofit, the challenges of launching a student-led organization, and the critical importance of including young people in conversations about aging.Together, we explore the power of sharing life stories across generations, how college students are building bonds with seniors, and why these connections matter more than ever in today's world. You'll hear inspiring insights, learn practical ways to get involved, and gain a vision for the future of intergenerational engagement in communities everywhere.If you like this episode, please let us know. We appreciate the feed back, and your support of offset costs of producing the podcast!Here are 3 key takeaways:Intergenerational Connections are Powerful: The Legacy Project is growing across 25+ college campuses, pairing students with seniors to record life stories. Both seniors and students consistently find value in these relationships, breaking down age-related stereotypes and fostering mutual learning.Storytelling as Civic Engagement: Arielle emphasized that sharing stories isn't just "feel good" work—it's a tool for combating social isolation, reducing ageism, and even driving community change. The project is now launching an Intergenerational Changemakers fellowship to encourage civic collaborations across ages.Opportunities & Resources Abound: From forming campus chapters to collaborating with local senior communities and national organizations like Generations United, there are so many ways to get involved. Whether you're a student, educator, or community member, resources and guidance are available to help you create or join an intergenerational initiative.Moments00:00 Shaping Long-Term Care Policy04:44 "Intergenerational Storytelling Legacy Project"08:24 Legacy Project Integration in Coursework11:55 Conference Sparks Growth in Aging Services15:05 "Mutual Benefits of Generational Ties"18:36 Growing Industry: Services for Seniors20:02 Shift from Recruitment to Expansion24:37 Podcast Resource on Legacy Project25:54 Youth Caregivers Face Unique Challenges30:27 "Intergenerational Change Makers" Initiative32:17 "Fostering Multigenerational Community Dialogue"38:21 Live an Intergenerational Lifestyle39:21 "Embrace Life's Stories"We would love to hear from you.Give us your feedback, or suggest a topic, by leaving us a voice message.Email us at hello@lookingforwardourway.com.Find us on Bluesky and Facebook.Please review our podcast on...

Yale Law's Justin Driver argues that SFFA v. Harvard/UNC broke with precedent and embraced a faux “colorblindness,” spotlighting the Court's creative reading of Grutter's 2028 “sunset.” He lays out the early fallout—sharp drops in Black enrollment at elite schools, Asian American gains, and the perverse incentive for applicants to “essay their trauma.” We debate mismatch theory, legacy and athletics preferences, and how universities can lawfully pursue diversity without outright defiance. Also: Argentina's bailout, the Tylenol culture war, and new federal threats to district DEI funding. Produced by Corey Wara Production Coordinator Ashley Khan Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠GIST INSTAGRAM⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow The Gist List at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Pesca⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack⁠⁠⁠⁠

From BMX tracks to the Iditarod trail, and from Yale Law to global justice reform, Matt Garretson's life is a masterclass in resilience, curiosity, and purpose-driven innovation. In this episode, Jeff Bloomfield sits down with Matt to explore how his unique blend of risk-taking, compassion, and intellectual rigor led him to reshape the legal services sector, build businesses that impact thousands, and embark on extreme adventures that test the limits of human endurance. Whether it's resolving billion-dollar settlements, pioneering AI in the legal industry, or pedaling 1,000 miles across frozen Alaska, Matt's story is proof that the best results come from observing, engaging, adapting, and persevering. His daily formula:  “My guiding mantra each day was that I must be methodical about observing (all data re terrain, weather, gear, etc.), engaging (with the underlying assumptions derived from those observations), adapting (because everything changes constantly when executing in an unpredictable/uncontrolled environment), persevering (having faith/confidence that i have the body, mind and spirit to accomplish the daily goals if i stay methodical about this loop). I broke each day into hour segments meaning for instance i didnt plan for 60 miles or 15 hours each day….i just needed to make it for instance from 9 AM to 10AM…then i can make it to 11 and if I made it to 11 then certainly 12 was possible etc. 18 days later I was in Nome!!!” This isn't just a story about legal innovation or adventure sports — it's a blueprint for high-stakes decision-making in life and business. Matt's “Observe, Engage, Adapt, Persevere” framework, forged in the crucible of both courtroom battles and Arctic winds, is a practical leadership model for anyone navigating uncertainty. Leaders, entrepreneurs, and high-performers will walk away with actionable insights on risk management, building trust in complex negotiations, integrating AI into human-centered processes, and maintaining clarity when the stakes are high and the variables keep changing. Origin shapes destiny — The combination of his father's risk-taking spirit and his mother's intellectual curiosity formed the foundation of Matt's worldview. Unconventional paths have power — Yale undergrad + night law school created a rare blend of elite theory and gritty pragmatism. Faith in action — Matt's theology degree grew out of reconciling the good and harm he saw in organized religion. Neutrality is a business model — Creating fair, transparent systems for complex legal settlements can transform entire industries. AI accelerates trust — Tools like Pattern Data and Jane are reshaping how the legal profession processes and shares information. Adventure as a leadership lab — Extreme endurance events sharpen decision-making and adaptability. Observe, Engage, Adapt, Persevere — A simple yet powerful framework for survival and success. Moisture management matters — Small, counterintuitive habits can make or break long-term success in any high-stakes environment. Find the middle ground — In negotiations, you've likely reached fairness when both sides are slightly unhappy but see the logic. Impact over income — Matt's latest venture in Guatemala proves that business growth and social good can be inseparable. 00:00 – Intro & guest setup 05:35 – Matt's origin story: risk-taking father, intellectual mother 09:00 – Discovering law as a second-phase career 11:55 – Theological studies: reconciling faith and harm 17:28 – The birth of a neutral legal administrator 21:11 – World Trade Center, BP Oil Spill, and mass tort work 27:39 – Truth, accountability, and finding reliable sources 31:44 – AI's role in transforming the legal industry 39:23 – Epic adventures: Great Divide, Baja Divide, Iditarod 45:58 – The Observe–Engage–Adapt–Persevere model 53:48 – Burnbright: blending business, social impact, and job creation

Kate, Leah, and Melissa break down how the lower courts are challenging the Trump administration and expressing their frustration with SCOTUS. Then, they check in with two members of the supermajority: Brett Kavanaugh, who's touting a shiny new shadow docket rebrand, and Amy Coney Barrett as she commences her cursèd book tour. Finally, the hosts speak with Yale Law professor Justin Driver about his book, The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education.Hosts' and guests' favorite things:Kate: Apologies: You Have Reached the End of Your Free-Trial Period of America! By Alexandra Petri (The Atlantic); Bonus 176: Law, Lawlessness, and Doomerism, Steve Vladeck (One First); How a Top Secret SEAL Team 6 Mission Into North Korea Fell Apart, Dave Philipps and Matthew Cole (NYT)Leah: The DC Circuit's Realpolitik Orders in the Foreign Aid Funding Case, Chris Geidner; 174. Justice Gorsuch's Attack on Lower Courts & Bonus 174: Playing the Justices for Fools, Steve Vladeck (One First); The Supreme Court Is Backing Trump's Power Grab, Kate Shaw & Ezra Klein (NYT).Melissa: RFK's Senate Finance Committee hearing; Hijacking the Kennedys, Reeves Waldman (New York Magazine); Nancy Mace: Everything You Didn't Know About Her Sh*tty Past (Crooked's Hysteria); These Summer Storms, Sarah MacLean; Gwyneth: The Biography, Amy OdellJustin: The Creative Act: A Way of Being, Rick Rubin; Martin Luther King's Constitution: A Legal History of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Randall Kennedy (Yale Law Journal) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

BBC Radio Wiltshire and Gloucestershire host Graham Rogers explores with Dan Harris, political commentator and podcast co-host 'Over Here, Over There', the significance of JD Vance's visit to the Gloucestershire-Wiltshire border. Dan describes JD Vance's background, the role of the Vice President, and Vance's potential future in politics. The discussion highlights Vance's rise in prominence compared to previous vice presidents, his political aspirations, and the implications of his actions on the international stage.TakeawaysJD Vance is a rising political figure with a military background.He has a legal education from Ohio State and Yale Law.Vance's book 'Hillbilly Elegy' gained him significant recognition.The Vice President's role can be influential, especially in the Senate.Vance's visit to Fairford Air Force base is seen as a strategic move.He is positioning himself for a potential presidential run in 2028.Vance's controversial views align with the MAGA movement., His international engagements enhance his political profile.The Vice President's visibility is often determined by the President.Vance's popularity exceeds that of many past vice presidents.This episode is available on all major podcast platforms (YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. Please don't forget to like, share, and subscribe to the podcasts with good people like yourselves. We'd really appreciate it.We're off on our summer break and will begin OHOT Series 4 in September. However, we'll be dropping a few episodes when needed, so stay tuned and make sure you turn on the

Medicine stands at the threshold of a new era, where artificial intelligence and systems biology are working hand in hand to make care more personal, predictive, and precise than ever before. AI is already improving diagnostic accuracy, automating administrative tasks, and uncovering patterns in data—like retinal scans or genomics—that humans often miss. Rather than replacing doctors, AI enhances their ability to deliver more informed, precise, and efficient care. At the same time, individuals are gaining tools—from at-home diagnostics to wearable biosensors—that empower them to track and optimize their own health. This shift marks a move from reactive, disease-centered care to a proactive, data-driven model of scientific wellness. In this episode, I talk with Dr. Eric Topol, Dr. Nathan Price, Dr. Leroy Hood, Dr. Vijay Pande, and Daisy Wolf about how artificial intelligence, personalized data, and wearable technology are converging to radically transform medicine. Dr. Eric Topol is Executive Vice President of Scripps Research and founder/director of its Translational Institute, recognized as one of the top 10 most cited researchers in medicine with over 1,300 publications. A cardiologist and author of several bestselling books on the future of medicine, he leads major NIH grants in precision medicine and shares cutting-edge biomedical insights through his Ground Truths newsletter and podcast. Dr. Nathan Price is Chief Scientific Officer at Thorne HealthTech, author of The Age of Scientific Wellness, and a National Academy of Medicine Emerging Leader. He also serves on the Board on Life Sciences for the National Academies and is Affiliate Faculty in Bioengineering and Computer Science at the University of Washington. Dr. Leroy Hood is CEO and founder of Phenome Health, leading the Human Phenome Initiative to sequence and track the health of one million people over 10 years. A pioneer in systems biology and co-founder of 17 biotech companies, he is a recipient of the Lasker Prize, Kyoto Prize, and National Medal of Science. Dr. Vijay Pande is a General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz and founder of a16z Bio + Health, managing over $3 billion in life sciences and healthcare investments at the intersection of biology and AI. An Adjunct Professor at Stanford, he is known for his work in computational science, earning honors like the DeLano Prize and a Guinness World Record for Folding@Home. Daisy Wolf is an investing partner at Andreessen Horowitz, specializing in healthcare AI, consumer health, and healthcare-fintech innovation. She previously worked at Meta and in various startups, holds a JD from Yale Law, an MBA from Stanford, and a BA from Yale, and is based in New York City. This episode is brought to you by BIOptimizers. Head to bioptimizers.com/hyman and use code HYMAN10 to save 10%. Full-length episodes can be found here: Can AI Fix Our Health and Our Healthcare System? The Next Revolution In Medicine: Scientific Wellness, AI And Disease Reversal The Future of Healthcare: The Role of AI and Technology

Meghan sits down with our Second Lady, Usha Vance, for her first long-form interview since stepping into the national spotlight, and she's sharing it all! Usha opens up about making the leap from Ohio to Capitol Hill, the beautiful chaos of raising kids in a two-faith household, and what it's really like being one of the most famous women in the world. Plus, Meghan drops some personal news of her own — baby number three is on the way and is a boy — Usha shares some heartfelt parenting advice. Don't miss Usha's sweet story about falling in love with the Vice President back at Yale. It's a candid, charming chat you'll want to hear!

In this powerful episode, I sit down with Mary Marantz—author, speaker, and Yale Law graduate who grew up in a single-wide trailer in West Virginia. Mary's story is one of grit, grace, and the kind of quiet strength that comes from being underestimated. We dive deep into what it looks like to rise from humble beginnings and how to stop living life trying to prove yourself to others.Mary shares vulnerable truths about the mindsets that keep women stuck—perfectionism, imposter syndrome, people-pleasing, overthinking—and the practical shifts that lead to freedom. If you've ever battled self-doubt or felt like you were meant for more but fear keeps holding you back, this episode will remind you: you're not behind, you're being built.https://marymarantz.com/underestimated https://www.instagram.com/marymarantzhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/marymarantzshow

The Uplift app is here! Try it free for 30 days. Today on Smart Girl Summer, I'm joined by my brilliant and beautiful friend Mary Marantz. She went from Yale Law to full-time photographer to best-selling author—and let me tell you, her story is a masterclass in trusting God with the pivots.   We're talking about how to build a business that means something, what it looks like to rewrite your story while you're still in the middle of it, and why sometimes the door that slams in your face might be the setup for something greater.   Mary is wisdom and warmth wrapped in a gorgeous blonde blowout, and she's here to remind you that your past doesn't disqualify you—it prepares you. If you've been wondering if it's too late to start over or too messy to move forward, pull up a seat. You're in the right place. Timestamps: (01:58) - The Power of Pivoting (18:43) - Common Mistakes Authors Make (20:25)- Smart Strategies to Grow Your Platform, Podcast, and Social Media Today (24:47) - What She'd Do If She Were Starting Over Today (31:59) - How to Recover From Burnout WATCH ALLI  ON YOUTUBE Links to great things we discussed:    Mary's Travel Recommendation - Yeti Mary's Skincare Recommendation - Golden Hour Mary's  Recommendation - Canva Mary's Product Recommendation - Hatch Mary's TV Recommendation - The Handmaid's Tale Mary's Achiever Quiz   I hope you loved this episode!

Ever feel like no matter how hard you try, you're still not good enough? Like you're outrunning a wolf that lives inside you, always whispering, “You've got more to prove”. But what if fear isn't your enemy? What if it's actually pointing you toward your purpose? In this deeply transformative conversation with bestselling author Mary Marantz, we explore how the experiences that once made us feel underestimated—and the relentless drive to overachieve—can keep us stuck in cycles of perfectionism, people-pleasing, and fear-fueled productivity.  Mary and I unpack the myths of not-enoughness, talk about the parts of ourselves that try to protect us from failure, and offer a new path forward: one where your gifts and your story become your superpowers. Get ready to look at fear differently, reclaim your confidence, and learn to move forward—not from a place of proving, but from a place of purpose. Timestamps: 00:00 – Why You're Still Not Enough (Even After All the Achievements) 02:01 – Mary's Story: From Single-Wide Trailer to Yale Law 03:55 – Why Fear Isn't the Villain You Think It Is 06:14 – The Power of Owning Your Hard Story 14:15 – When Fear Shows Up, You're Closer Than You Think 18:06 – Creativity, Fear, and the Impostor Trap 24:27 – What To Do With Fear When It Gets Loud 29:23 – Catching Fear in the Act 30:35 – A Totally Different Kind of Coaching 36:01 – Your Inner Critic Isn't Evil—It's Trying to Protect You 39:24 – Procrastination, Perfectionism, and Productivity Traps 45:55 – Underestimated: When They Miss Your Magic (and You Do, Too) 55:58 – Make Art Anyway: Excellence Without Validation 57:02 – Finding Clarity and Confidence If you feel like you're hustling for your worth—trying to prove something to someone, maybe even to yourself—it might be time for a new approach. I created Clarity and Confidence Coaching for exactly this purpose—to support brilliant, driven people just like you in shedding their limiting beliefs, getting clear on their direction, and moving forward into their dream life with confidence.  Clarity and Confidence Coaching is an incredible 8-week journey led by my team of trained therapist-coaches. It's evidence-based, transformational, and wildly affordable — just $49/session right now as part of our practicum program. You'll be guided with depth and care and use life changing coaching strategies to rewrite your inner script and start taking action — from your strengths, not your fear.

Jon Michaels is a UCLA professor of law specializing in constitutional and national security law. His award-winning scholarship has appeared in the Yale Law Journal, University of Chicago Law Review, and Harvard Law Review, and he has written popular essays for the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, and Guardian. A Yale Law graduate and Supreme Court clerk, Michaels is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the advisory board of UCLA's Safeguarding Democracy Project. His latest book, co-written with David Noll, is VIGILANTE NATION: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens our Democracy Is what Donald Trump's doing in LA with the National Guard and the Marines legal? Constitutional? And what happens next? Who ultimately will win this consequential national showdown between Gov. Gavin Newsom and Trump. Jon answers these questions and more. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

Meanwhile in Memphis conversations showcase collaboration in Memphis and beyond, and today's episode kicks off an exciting mini-series within the show: Legislately with Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris! This collaboration will bring together nationally-renowned experts and local leaders to amplify ways leaders in our community are learning, collaborating, innovating, and working to set Memphis and Shelby County up for success.   Today's episode is the initial installment of the Meanwhile in Memphis Legislately series, and the conversation explores juvenile justice reform with Mayor Lee Harris and Yale Law professor, Pulitzer Prize-winning author, and recent contributor to New York Times Magazine, James Forman, Jr.   Resources mentioned in this episode include: Shelby County Government Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America by James Forman New York Times article "What Happened When America Emptied Its Youth Prisons" by David Muhammad National Civil Rights Museum Memphis Shelby County Schools' Hope Academy The Youth Justice and Education Center Maya Angelou Academy @ DC Jail BreakFree Education with David Domenici Why Youth Incarceration Fails: An Updated Review of the Evidence from The Sentencing Project This episode is made possible in partnership with Shelby County Government.

In this episode, Shana dives into the often starry-eyed optimism students have when choosing a law school based on the ranking in a specific specialization. The conversation challenges whether these rankings truly determine success—or whether students need to read between the lines before committing.Guest co-host Yale Law grad Trudel Pare argues to exercise caution if you share the mindset of applicants who chase high-ranking specialization programs without fully considering the fine print. She believes it's time to question ranks and ask the tough questions: Are students being misled by rankings alone, or are they simply not asking the right questions? What does the ranking actually mean for your future prospects?

In this unforgettable episode of The 1000 Hours Outside Podcast, Ginny Yurich welcomes author and Yale Law graduate Mary Marantz for a conversation that is as heart-wrenching as it is hope-filled. Mary shares her journey from a trailer on a mountaintop in West Virginia to the halls of Yale, weaving together stories of dirt-stained roots, childhood magic, absent parents, and the quiet faithfulness that carried her through. With honesty and insight, she explores the deep longing to belong, the ache of being underestimated, and the way small acts of consistency can carve out a whole new life. Together, Ginny and Mary uncover the quiet brilliance of repetition—the daily showing up, the unseen sacrifice, the uncelebrated grit. This episode is a moving reminder that you don't need to go big to matter. You just need to keep going. The power is in the small things—on repeat. ** Get your copy of Underestimated here Get your copy of Dirt here Learn more about Mary and all she has to offer here A huge thank you to our sponsors! Check them ALL out below:  Geviti: Visit ⁠https://www.gogeviti.com/1000hoursoutside⁠ for 20% off your first three months of membership! Active Skin Repair: Visit ⁠www.ActiveSkinRepair.com⁠  to learn more about Active Skin Repair and their commitment to 1% for the planet and use code: 1000hours to save 20% on all Active Skin Repair products Select Quote: Head to ⁠www.selectquote.com/1000hours⁠ to learn more.  Crowd Health: Learn more at ⁠www.joincrowdhealth.com⁠ and get started today for just $99 per month for your first three months by using code 1000HOURS.  BetterHelp: Visit  ⁠www.BetterHelp.com/1000HOURS⁠  today to get 10% off your first month. Fay Nutrition: Visit ⁠https://tinyurl.com/1KHOFayNutrition⁠ to see if you qualify for a dietitian for $0 CRU: Visit ⁠https://tinyurl.com/1KHOCru⁠ to sign up for a $24 monthly gift, and receive a free copy of Until The Streetlights Come On Reliefband - Get 20% off plus free shipping at ⁠https://tinyurl.com/1KHOreliefband⁠  Quince - Visit ⁠https://tinyurl.com/1KHOQuince⁠ and get free shipping and 365 day returns Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When a string of 2025 executive orders barred select law firms from federal buildings, revoked security clearances, and threatened to cancel their clients' government contracts, Big Law took notice. Yale Law professor John Morley—author of Why Law Firms Collapse—joins Talks On Law host Joel Cohen to explain:how the orders leverage client pressure to destabilize even thriving partnerships;the “bank-run” dynamic of partner exits and collapsing profits-per-partner;bankruptcy claw-back rules and unfinished-business liability that haunt partners who stay;ethics constraints under Model Rules 5.4 and 5.6 that limit outside capital, speed lawyer mobility, and allow for this unique risk;why transactional giants settled while litigation shops fought—and the reputational trade-offs for both.How to Earn CLE CreditListen to the full program, note the verification code announced during the recording, then log in to your TalksOnLaw account to record attendance and download your certificate.This podcast is approved for 1.25 hours of MCLE credit in Legal Ethics. Check your jurisdiction for reciprocal credit. MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

When a string of 2025 executive orders barred select law firms from federal buildings, revoked security clearances, and threatened to cancel their clients' government contracts, Big Law took notice. Yale Law professor John Morley—author of Why Law Firms Collapse—joins Talks On Law host Joel Cohen to explain:how the orders leverage client pressure to destabilize even thriving partnerships;the “bank-run” dynamic of partner exits and collapsing profits-per-partner;bankruptcy claw-back rules and unfinished-business liability that haunt partners who stay;ethics constraints under Model Rules 5.4 and 5.6 that limit outside capital, speed lawyer mobility, and allow for this unique risk;why transactional giants settled while litigation shops fought—and the reputational trade-offs for both.How to Earn CLE CreditListen to the full program, note the verification code announced during the recording, then log in to your TalksOnLaw account to record attendance and download your certificate.This podcast is approved for 1.25 hours of MCLE credit in Legal Ethics. Check your jurisdiction for reciprocal credit. MCLE available to TalksOnLaw “Premium” or “Podcast” members. Visit www.talksonlaw.com to learn more.)

Ever felt like you're not enough, or that someone's going to find out you don't belong? You're not alone—and Mary Marantz gets it. In this honest and inspiring conversation, Mary—author, speaker, and host of The Mary Marantz Show—shares her journey from growing up in a trailer in rural West Virginia to graduating from Yale Law and becoming a bestselling author. But this isn't a highlight reel. Mary opens up about wrestling with fear, imposter syndrome, perfectionism, and the pressure to constantly strive for more. We talk about what it really means to feel stuck (especially in midlife), why procrastination isn't laziness, and how urgency can actually be a gift. Mary also breaks down the difference between setting goals and living with intention—and why that distinction matters. If you're tired of chasing worth and ready to reclaim your story, this episode is for you. FIND MORE ABOUT MARY MARANTZ Mary Marantz - Website and Instagram Mary Marantz Book- Underestimated A FEW THINGS MENTIONED Mary's Other Books -Dirt -Slow Growth, Equals Strong Roots Other Books -Be The Unicorn Mary's Podcast Show -The Mary Marantz Show QUESTIONS TO HELP YOU RISE Is there an area of life where you are feeling stuck? What face of fear is feeding that: Perfectionism, procrastination, people pleasing etc? How can you show up with authenticity in every area of your life so that you feel integrated as you go through your days? Where do you feel like you've put on imposter syndrome as a means of self-protection? How can you show up with intention daily to help you live in integrity? LET'S CONNECT! Did you like this episode? Let us know and leave a review on itunes or share it with a friend. Or message us on Instagram – we'd love to hear from you! Get the Daily Dozen Checklist -12 habits that will immediately make you happier and healthier

The Shiloh Hendrix story is a fascinating one, especially since it wasn't long ago where the woke mobs successfully ruined the lives and souls of individuals for the crime of expressing non-regime-approved viewpoints. Sarah Braasch became persona non grata back in 2018 over a "sleeping while black" hoax at Yale Law. She joined Tony Mazur on the Check Your Brain podcast to give the perspective of someone who was doxxed and canceled, and how refreshing it is to see someone like Shiloh get backed by an in-group preference.   Sarah is still struggling with bills and getting back on her feet all these year later, so consider supporting her GoFundMe.   Be sure to subscribe to Tony's Patreon. $3 gets you just audio, $5 gets video AND audio, and $10 has all of the above, as well as bonus podcasts per week. Visit Patreon.com/TonyMazur. Tony is also on Rumble! Go find his video podcasts over there for free.   Cover art for the Check Your Brain podcast is by Eric C. Fischer. If you need terrific graphic design work done, contact Eric at illstr8r@gmail.com.

It's all been done. I can't start until it's perfect. What if the critics come? In this episode, Christa talks with Mary Marantz, Enneagram 4, about her journey from growing up in a trailer in rural West Virginia to becoming a Yale Law graduate, successful entrepreneur, and author, only to learn she was still underestimating herself. This empowering conversation explores how to overcome self-doubt, silence your inner critic, and stop playing small. Mary's powerful message will help you move from stuck to start, providing both inspiration and practical steps to push past fear and excuses. Join us for this transformative discussion with the host of the iTunes Top 200 podcast "The Mary Marantz Show" about embracing your worth and creating the impact only you can make, just as Mary shares insights from her perspective as an Enneagram 4 and discusses her brand new book "Underestimated" releasing tomorrow! Watch on YouTube Follow Mary here: https://marymarantz.com/ Get Mary's brand new book, Underestimated, here! https://a.co/d/e3eySUD https://www.instagram.com/marymarantz https://www.facebook.com/groups/marymarantzshow Find more relationship tools at www.EnneagramandMarriage.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hey friends + welcome to what will actually be the last conversation episode for the spring of 2025 + part 1 of what will now be a 2-part season of the Your Brand of Beautiful Podcast. This is a little bit of a change of plans but don't worry, more updates on a solo-episode coming your way next week! This week, we're chatting about a true underdog story with author, Mary Marantz. For those who don't know her, Mary's story is something special. She grew up in a West Virginia mountainside trailer + ended up being the first in her family to go to college — which just so happened to be Yale Law. Today we're talking all about her story + the books she's written about it — including her newest, ‘Underestimated' that comes out a WEEK FROM TODAY (pre-order details below). In our conversation Mary is very poetically painting the picture of her life, including... How the dirt floor of her upbringing + the roots she thought would keep her chained to where she was forever, became the very thing that would open the door to Yale law. Why Slow Growth = Strong Roots is her life's mantra (also the title of her second book). How her new book, Underestimated, uncoverss that fear holds a lot of names (like Perfectionism, Procrastination, People Pleasing, Impostor Syndrome, Overthinking… 14 in total) -- including a deep dive on perfectionism in this conversation! I just know this conversation is for someone out there listening and I can't wait for you to dive in. You'll have to tell me what you think! About Mary Marantz: Mary Marantz grew up in a trailer in rural West Virginia. The first of her immediate family to go to college, she went on to earn a master's degree in moral philosophy and a law degree from Yale. After ditching six-figure-salary law firm offers in London and New York and starting a business with her husband, Justin, together they have built their online education platform for creative entrepreneurs. Mary is a popular writer and speaker whose work has recently been featured by Business Insider, MSN, Bustle, and Brit+Co. And she is also the host of the iTunes Top 200 podcast, The Mary Marantz Show. She lives in an 1880s fixer-upper by the sea in New Haven, Connecticut with Justin and their two very fluffy golden retrievers, Goodspeed & Atticus. PRE-ORDER MARY'S NEW BOOK!:  https://amzn.to/4lkQ169 Follow Mary on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/marymarantz/?hl=en About Your Brand of Beautiful Host, Bailie White: Bailie White is a motivational speaker with nearly 10 years of entrepreneurial experience and a heart for serving, motivating, and encouraging women. After starting and scaling her first business — a luxury travel agency with a team of 15 women, a celebrity clientele, and multi-millions of dollars in annual sales — she sold the business after realizing what she once thought was her dream, didn't fully align with the woman she wanted to become. Today, Bailie is the host of the Your Brand of Beautiful Podcast (debuting on Apple's Top Charts) and a published author and speaker. Bailie facilitates workshops and delivers keynote speeches to college women, young professionals, and mamapreneurs. Bailie teaches these women how to Stop Being Busy, Quiet The Noise, and Start Being Them — she teaches them how to become Their Own Brand of Beautiful. Bailie has been featured in media outlets like Buzzfeed and Forbes, but is most proud of her title as ‘wife' and ‘mom' to her two small children. Bailie lives with her family on the outskirts of Savannah, Georgia.   LET'S CONNECT! For speaking, event, or podcasting collabs, email: hey@bailiewhite.com Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/heybailiewhite/ Visit Website: https://www.bailiewhite.com Weekly Newsletter: https://www.bailiewhite.com/newsletter

Reginald Dwayne Betts spent more than eight years in prison. Today he's a Yale Law graduate, a MacArthur Fellow, and a poet. His nonprofit works to build libraries in prisons so that more incarcerated people can find hope. SOURCES:Reginald Dwayne Betts, founder and director of Freedom Reads, award-winning poet, and lawyer. RESOURCES:Doggerel: Poems, by Reginald Dwayne Betts (2025).“The Poet Writing on Prison Underwear,” by Adam Iscoe (The New Yorker, 2023).The Voltage Effect, by John List (2022).“If We Truly Believe in Redemption and Second Chances, Parole Should Be Celebrated,” by Reginald Dwayne Betts (The Washington Post, 2021).Insurrections, by Rion Scott (2016).The Secret History of Wonder Woman, by Jill Lepore (2014).Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values, by Robert M. Pirsig (1974).The Black Poets, by Dudley Randall (1971).“For Freckle-Faced Gerald,” by Etheridge Knight (Poems from Prison, 1968).Felon: An America Washi Tale, by Reginald Dwayne Betts.Freedom Reads. EXTRAS:“Can a Moonshot Approach to Mental Health Work?” by People I (Mostly) Admire (2023).“Can Data Keep People Out of Prison?” by People I (Mostly) Admire (2023).“The Price of Doing Business with John List,” by People I (Mostly) Admire (2022).“Why Do Most Ideas Fail to Scale?” by Freakonomics Radio (2022).

Is Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) actually saving taxpayers money, or is it just political theater? Ravi sits down with Zach Liscow, Yale Law professor and former Chief Economist at the Office of Budget and Management at the White House, to break down the reality behind government spending, infrastructure inefficiencies, and the myths of tax cuts. They dive into whether current fiscal policies will truly reduce the deficit or simply pass a massive bill to future generations. Plus, they unpack how the ultra-wealthy navigate the tax system and what reforms could make it more equitable. Leave us a voicemail with your thoughts on the show! 321-200-0570 --- Follow Ravi at @ravimgupta Follow Ravi on Goodreads: www.goodreads.com/ravimgupta Follow The Branch at @thebranchmedia Notes from this episode are available on Substack: https://thelostdebate.substack.com/ Lost Debate is available on the following platforms:  • Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lost-debate/id1591300785 • Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7xR9pch9DrQDiZfGB5oF0F • YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@LostDebate • Google: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vTERJNTc1ODE3Mzk3Nw  • iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-lost-debate-88330217/ • Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/752ca262-2801-466d-9654-2024de72bd1f/the-lost-debate

Between 2000 and 2020, the number of young people incarcerated in the United States declined by an astonishing 77 percent. Red states and blue states alike lock up fewer kids than in 2000 — and in most, the drops have been precipitous: more than half of states have experienced declines of 75 percent or more. In his New York Times Magazine piece, Yale Law professor James Forman examines the reasons for the drop in incarceration and how states are responding. We talk to Forman and California experts about what the statistics can tell us about our shifting juvenile justice system and what we've learned about addressing youth crime. Guests: James Forman Jr., professor of law, Yale Law School; won the Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for his book, "Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America;" his most recent piece in the New York Times Magazine is titled, "What Happened When America Emptied Its Youth Prisons" David Muhammad, executive director, National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform; former Chief Probation Officer for Alameda County Laura Abrams, professor of social welfare, UCLA's Luskin School of Public Affairs; author of "Compassionate Confinement: A Year in the Life of Unit C" and "Everyday Desistance: The Transition to Adulthood Among Formerly Incarcerated Youth" Katherine Lucero, director, Office of Youth and Community Restoration; former supervising judge in juvenile court, Santa Clara County Superior Court

Anastasia Boyko likes to say that she's Goldilocks-ed her way through her career. True, it's been a varied career, as she's tried out different roles, but it is a career that has taken her full circle, from Yale Law School, where she graduated, and then eventually back to Yale Law to create a program in leadership for lawyers, and from Salt Lake City, where she grew up after she and her mother fled Soviet-era Ukraine, and then back to that city as chief innovation officer at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law.  Along the way, Boyko has learned a thing or two about the roles of leadership and innovation in legal education, and she has strong opinions about why law schools should do better at preparing students to be both leaders and innovators. In today's LawNext, Boyko joins host Bob Ambrogi to share the journey of her Goldilocks-ed career and her insights on leadership and innovation, as well as ac-cess to justice.  After graduating from Yale Law School, Boyko began her career in private practice as a tax lawyer. She went on to hold diverse professional positions, including law librarian, Supreme Court intern, banker, yoga teacher, wellness entrepreneur, and career coach. She returned to Yale Law as the inaugural dean of the school's Tsai Leadership Program, where she developed an innovative leadership program for lawyers, and returned to the University of Utah's law school, first as director of non-J.D. programs and then as chief innovation officer.   Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out. Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Littler, local everywhere.  Steno, reliable court reporting with a revolutionary approach Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner).   If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

“Who controls what is taught in American universities — professors or politicians?” Yale Law professor Keith Whittington answers this timely question and more in his new book, “You Can't Teach That! The Battle over University Classrooms.” He joins the podcast to discuss the history of academic freedom, the difference between intramural and extramural speech, and why there is a “weaponization” of intellectual diversity. Keith E. Whittington is the David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Whittington's teaching and scholarship span American constitutional theory, American political and constitutional history, judicial politics, the presidency, and free speech and the law. Read the transcript. Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 02:00 The genesis of Yale's Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech 04:42 The inspiration behind “You Can't Teach That!” 06:18 The First Amendment and academic freedom 09:29 Extramural speech and the public sphere 17:56 Intramural speech and its complexities 23:13 Florida's Stop WOKE Act 26:34 Distinctive features of K-12 education 31:13 University of Pennsylvania professor Amy Wax 39:02 University of Kansas professor Phillip Lowcock 43:42 Muhlenberg College professor Maura Finkelstein 47:01 University of Wisconsin La-Crosse professor Joe Gow 54:47 Northwestern professor Arthur Butz 57:52 Inconsistent applications of university policies 01:02:23 Weaponization of “intellectual diversity” 01:05:53 Outro Show notes: “Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech” Keith Whittington (2019) “You Can't Teach That!: The Battle Over University Classrooms” Keith Whittington (2023) AAUP Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1915) AAUP Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1940) “Kinsey” (2004) Stop WOKE Act, HB 7. (Fla. 2022) Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967) Indiana intellectual diversity law, S.E.A. 354 (Ind. 2022) “Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District” (1969)

"We may think that we're just eating our dinner tonight, but when you multiply it by all of that food every day, every day of the year, everyone in the country, everybody in the world, it's a tremendous production. Just to give you a sense, in the US, we slaughter about 18,000 animals every minute for food just in the United States." - Peter Lehner  Agriculture and our food system are responsible for about a third of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the food system gets left out of too many climate conversations and the industry is rarely held accountable. I asked Peter Lehner to come on the show and explain what agriculture's role is in climate, and how and why they are so often left off the hook. Peter is one of the leading experts on the impact of agriculture and climate change. He directs Earth Justice's Sustainable Food and Farming program, developing litigation, administrative and legislative strategies to promote a more just and environmentally sound agriculture system and to reduce health, environmental and climate harms from the production of our food. He is also the author of farming for Our Future The Science, Law and Policy of Climate Neutral Agriculture. He also teaches at Columbia and Yale Law schools. Please listen and share.    

In this episode of SPACES, Sara C. Bronin discusses the complexities and evolution of zoning laws, their impact on urban development, housing, and community planning. Sara C. Bronin is a Mexican-American architect, attorney, and professor at Cornell University. She serves in the Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed role as chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and founded and leads the National Zoning Atlas. A Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law graduate, she writes on law, zoning, and sustainability, including Key to the City.In this conversation Sara emphasizes the need for zoning reform to create more walkable communities and address societal issues such as access to quality education and environmental sustainability. The discussion also highlights the unique case of Houston, which operates without traditional zoning codes, and the potential for zoning to serve as a tool for positive change in urban environments.Get the book, Key to the City: How Zoning Shapes Our WorldIf you enjoy our content, you can check out similar content from our fellow creators at Gābl Media. Spaces Podcast Spaces Podcast website Spaces Podcast // Gābl Media All rights reserved Mentioned in this episode:ArchIT

In 2019, women earn .79 cents for every dollar a man makes. Though we can attribute the gender pay gap to several factors including occupational segregation, bias against working mothers, and circumstances like racial bias, disability, and access to education, there's no denying numbers and that we still have a lot of work to do to create an even playing field. On today's episode, I am thrilled to have a woman and mother who has been an advocate for closing the gender gap throughout her career. Reshma Saujani is the Founder and CEO of Girls Who Code, the international nonprofit organization working to close the gender gap in tech and change the image of what a computer programmer looks like and does. It has reached 185,000 girls in all 50 states, Canada, and the UK. In 2019, Girls Who Code was awarded Most Innovative Non-Profit by Fast Company. Reshma is the author of the international bestseller Brave, Not Perfect and has a podcast with the same name and the New York Times bestseller Girls Who Code: Learn to Code and Change the World. Reshma's TED talk, “Teach girls, bravery not perfection,” has more than four million views and has sparked a worldwide conversation about how we're raising our girls. She began her career as an attorney and activist. In 2010, she surged onto the political scene as the first Indian American woman to run for U.S. Congress. During the race, she visited local schools and saw the gender gap in computing classes firsthand, which led her to start Girls Who Code. She is a graduate of the University of Illinois, Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and Yale Law. Her work on behalf of young women has earned her broad recognition on lists including: Fortune World's Greatest Leaders; Fortune 40 Under 40; WSJ Magazine Innovator of the Year; Forbes Most Powerful Women Changing the World; and Fast Company 100 Most Creative People, among others. She lives in New York City with her husband, Nihal, their son, Shaan, and bulldog, Stanley. Meet My Guest: WEBSITE: ReshmaSaujani.com WEBSITE: GirlsWhoCode.com INSTAGRAM: @reshmasaujani INSTAGRAM: @girlswhocode FACEBOOK: /reshma.saujani FACEBOOK: /GirlsWhoCode LINKEDIN: @reshma-saujani Press: TED: Reshma Saujani: Education Activist FORTUNE: Girls Who Code's Reshma Saujani: The First Time I Did Something Brave NEW YORK TIMES: Why Is Beauty So Important to Us THEWIESUITE: Prioritizing Yourself and Your Mission THESCIENCERUNWAY: Reshma Saujani Mom Haul: RENT THE RUNWAY: The Premier Designer Rental Destination Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jon Michaels is a UCLA professor of law specializing in constitutional and national security law. His award-winning scholarship has appeared in the Yale Law Journal, University of Chicago Law Review, and Harvard Law Review, and he has written popular essays for the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, and Guardian. A Yale Law graduate and Supreme Court clerk, Jon is a member of the American Law Institute and serves on the advisory board of UCLA's Safeguarding Democracy Project. His latest book, co-written with David Noll, is VIGILANTE NATION: How State-Sponsored Terror Threatens our Democracy. Jon and I discuss his new book and the increasing use of vigilantism by the Republican Party and red states in targeting vulnerable groups in America to influence cultural, legal and political outcomes. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

On episode 222, we welcome Jon Michaels and David Noll to discuss the alliance between vigilante groups and governments in the US, the four types of vigilantism and how they affect our lives, how vigilante groups utilize state laws to limit freedom of movement, the roots of vigilantism in the slavery era, the argument of individual liberty as a veil for tyranny, and the societal effects of the merger between business interests and right-wing cultural warriors. Jon Michaels is a UCLA professor of law specializing in constitutional, administrative, and national-security law. His award-winning scholarship has been published in The Yale Law Journal, the University of Chicago Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, and the Harvard Law Review; his popular essays have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, The Guardian, and The Forward. A Yale Law graduate and former Supreme Court clerk, Michaels is a member of the American Law Institute, serves on the advisory board of UCLA's Safeguarding Democracy Project, and is a faculty affiliate of UCLA's Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy. His first book, Constitutional Coup, was published by Harvard University Press. David Noll is the associate dean for faculty research and development and a professor of law at Rutgers Law School. His scholarly writings on civil procedure, complex litigation, and administrative law have appeared in the California Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, the New York University Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Texas Law Review, among others, and his popular writing has appeared in venues including The New York Times, Politico, Slate, and the New York Law Journal. A graduate of Columbia University and New York University School of Law, Noll is an academic fellow of the National Institute for Civil Justice. He clerked on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. | Jon Michaels and David Noll | ► Website | http://www.jondmichaels.com/about ► Twitter 1| https://x.com/davidlnoll ► Twitter 2 | https://x.com/JonDMichaels ► Bluesky | https://bsky.app/profile/david.noll.org ► Vigilante Nation Book | https://amzn.to/3zEjQvM Where you can find us: | Seize The Moment Podcast | ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMoment ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/seize_podcast  ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/seizethemoment ► TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@seizethemomentpodcast

Since our last episode on the ongoing conflict between Israel and Gaza, we wanted to do an update on where international law currently stands in the conflict. This year, the conflict has triggered several legal cases at international courts, including at the International Court of Justice, which has accused Israel of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.In this episode, we speak with Aslı Ü. Bâli, a Professor of Law at Yale University who teaches international law and human rights in the Middle East, and Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on The Occupied Palestinian Territories.

George Conway and Sarah Longwell get into the latest legal chaos surrounding Trump, the VP debates, and the MAGA Republican Party's extraordinary ability to get away with lying. George explains why he thinks JD Vance is "Eddie Haskell with a degree from Yale Law," and goes over Aileen Cannon's newest courtroom controversies.  Download PrizePicks and use code ASKGEORGE to get $50 instantly after you play your first $5 lineup!

Will Gaybrick joined Stripe as CFO after investing in the company at Thrive Capital. Over the past 9 years, now as President, he's helped grow Stripe's into one of the world's largest private startups. In this episode, we explore his impressive career journey—from Harvard Math to software engineering, Yale Law, venture capital, and now his leadership role at Stripe. Will shares key insights on capital allocation, crypto, AI, investing, leadership, and more. Some takeaways:(00:00) Intro(01:09) From Academia to Venture Capital(02:01) Joining Stripe: The Unexpected Journey(02:09) Career Philosophy and Decision Making(05:23) Building Hack Yale and Teaching(08:15) The Role of a Polymath at Stripe(09:31) Learning Techniques and AI Insights(16:15) Operational Shifts and Growth Strategies(20:36) Hiring and Leadership at Stripe(28:08) Organizational Systems and Processes(31:40) Migrating Users to New API Versions(32:07) Challenges in API Refactoring(33:57) The Rise of Stablecoins(34:07) Stripe's History with Crypto(35:51) Stablecoins: Use Cases and Adoption(41:30) AI and Machine Learning at Stripe(47:59) Risk Management and Compliance(53:21) Empowering Innovation with AI(57:14) Decision-Making Frameworks at Stripe(01:04:07) Stripe's Product Evolution(01:09:31) Exploring the Fun and Challenges of Product Space(01:10:20) Stripe's Organizational Structure and Strategy(01:12:12) The Importance of Technical Unification(01:13:13) User Demands and Capital Allocation(01:14:18) The Role of ROI in Early Projects(01:15:53) Stripe's Unique Approach to Titles and Levels(01:18:36) Insights on Organizational Design(01:21:36) Effective Leadership and Decision-Making(01:24:18) Reflections on Influential Leaders(01:33:25) The Value of Venture Capital(01:38:29) Future Prospects and Motivation at Stripe  Executive Producer: Rashad AssirProducer: Leah ClapperMixing and editing: Justin Hrabovsky Check out Unsupervised Learning, Redpoint's AI Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@UCUl-s_Vp-Kkk_XVyDylNwLA

A Better Way to Freeze (and Seize?) Russian Assets? Ever since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, there has been talk of what international law doctrines might be utilized to induce Russia to back off. One of those doctrines that has been whispered about is now, thanks to a wonderful new article by our guest, international law guru and Yale Law professor, Oona Hathaway, is that of Countermeasures. Oona and her co authors not only explain the law of countermeasures, but argue that these legal principles naturally extend into a doctrine of “collective countermeasures”. We ask Oona about these doctrines and their scope, particularly in the context of Russia and Ukraine. She argues that the doctrine, properly understood and applied, is (and should be) narrow. To quote Spider Man (maybe), “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility”. Producer: Leanna Doty

Josh McLaurin was JD Vance's roommate at Yale Law school, and was the recipient of the infamous text from JD Vance where he described Trump as “America's Hitler”.  In this interview, Josh describes how JD has changed into a “completely different person” in an attempt to gain power.  Josh McLaurin represents District 51 in the Georgia State House and is running for the state senate. You can learn more about him here.  Go to Qualialife.com/BOATS for up to 50% off and use code BOATS at checkout for an additional 15% off. Head to ZBiotics.com/BOATS and use the code BOATS at checkout for 15% off. Visit HENSONSHAVING.com/BOATS to pick the razor for you and use code BOATS and you'll get two years' worth of blades free with your razor–just make sure to add them to your cart. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tristan Snell unpacks the latest from the campaign trail from Tim Walz's VP nod to Trump's desperate rants. But the real kicker? J.D. Vance's not-so-subtle flirtation with authoritarianism. Snell breaks down how this Yale Law grad went from Trump critic to MAGA puppet, peddling dangerous ideas about voting rights and the end of the American republic. Is Vance just weird, or is he the most extreme candidate in America's history? Tristan exposes the threats to democracy hiding behind Vance's nerdy political jargon. Keep the couch jokes coming.

J.D. Vance brought Yale Law back into the spotlight. ----- As soon as J.D. Vance found himself on the GOP ticket, everyone who remembered him from his Yale Law days shared their thoughts and brought out their receipts. “JD's rise is a triumph for angry jerks everywhere,” isn't a ringing endorsement. The campaign also tried to pull a fast one with some tricky phrasing about his time on the Yale Law Journal. Kirkland & Ellis adopts a carrot and stick approach -- rewarding associates for recruiting and punishing partners for leaving. And we talk about the Baldwin case.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveOn July 1, the Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump, as President of the United States, enjoys “absolute” immunity for “his core constitutional powers,” but that he “enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does if official.” The ruling has an obvious immediate impact on the upcoming presidential elections. But it also suggests far-reaching questions about political sovereignty, and our system of government.In this episode, Sam and Damir get together to hash out the theoretical implications of the Court's ruling. Joining them is Yale Law professor and friend of the pod Samuel Moyn. Moyn argues that the Court's decision was as much a product of “comparative risk assessment” of our current and near-future political situation, as it was a theoretical statement about our political system. Damir pushes on the question of the meaning of sovereignty, and what immunity implies in terms of the limits of presidential power. Sam sums up the decision as having reached “the limits of business as usual.”In the bonus section for paid subscribers, the discussion strikes a philosophical note. Sam describes his views about the “Platonic” and “prophetic” sources of law, Damir asks whether Thomas Hobbes is still relevant, and Moyn explains his idea of “collective self-creation.” Law, politics, philosophy, and prophecy — this episode is packed with the drama of our time.Required Reading* Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court Immunity Ruling (supremecourt.gov).* Richard Tuck, The Sleeping Sovereign: The Invention of Modern Democracy (Cambridge). * Eric Nelson, The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding (Harvard).* “Broad Reflections on Trump v. United States,” by Jack Goldsmith (Lawfare).* Plato, Euthyphro (Internet Classics Archive).* Summary of the Kelsen-Schmitt debate (YouTube).This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Governance and Markets.Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!

Yale Law professor and Constitutional lawyer Jed Rubenfeld sits down to explain to me the truth about Trump's indictments, the weaponisation and bias of the legal system, the Hush Money trial, Hunter Biden's felony conviction, the Biden vs Missouri case, now named Murthy vs Missouri in which he is a lawyer representing RFK Jr, and Steve Bannon's contempt of Congress conviction.Is there a double standard? Did Hillary do the same exact thing and get away with it?Professor Rubenfeld tells me what was legitimate and not legitimate about the cases, what the judges got wrong, what happens next and what it means for the Presidential election.A deep dive into the legal technicalities the main stream media ignore. MUST WATCH INTERVIEW.Subscribe to Jed's YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/@UC8s9__mVWGlPSlFVxBSd7MQ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Michael was intrigued by a take on former President Trump's guilty verdict that many may disagree with. Hear Yale Law School Professor Jed Rubenfeld explain here. Original air date 4 June 2024.

Today, we're pulling one of our best episodes from the vaults, featuring the brilliant W. David Ball. Get book links and resources at http://2pageswithmbs.com and subscribe to the 2 Pages newsletter at https://2pageswithmbs.substack.com. Where do you find your people? I think I'm still looking for mine, and perhaps you are, too. What often happens is there's an initial rough sort where you get thrown in with others who have similar labels - but that's just the start of it. It's up to you to find your people amongst everyone. I realized that I keep looking for people who make me both think and laugh, meaning I need to seek them out to give them the opportunity to do so. Of course, sometimes your people don't actually need to be found, they need to be rediscovered; they're already there, waiting for you to reach out to them and say hello.  Today's guest is a law professor with articles published in the Columbia Law Review, Yale Law & Policy Review, the American Journal of Criminal Law, and many more. His full name is W. David Ball, but I know him as my friend Dave, someone I met when we were newly minted Rhodes scholars at Oxford in the early 1990s. Get‌ ‌book‌ ‌links‌ ‌and‌ ‌resources‌ ‌at‌ https://www.mbs.works/2-pages-podcast/  Dave reads the poem, ‘Ulysses' by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. [reading begins at 16:45]   Hear us discuss:  “I'd decided that I was going to be me, because there's no way I could fake that.” [9:25] | How to keep your artistic spirit alive: “The essence of creativity is being in touch with who you are, what you want to say to others, and how other people have moved you.” [11:48] | The process of keeping an open heart in your closest relationships. [24:20] | Sitting with ambition (as a Rhodes scholar). [28:13] | Work in the criminal legal system: “I have calluses - not in the sense where I don't feel, but where my skin isn't being burnt off.” [33:01]

Meet Judge Roy K. Altman, a U.S. District Court judge in the Southern District of Florida. Judge Altman was born in Caracas, Venezuela and immigrated with his family to Miami. After growing up in Miami, he graduated from Columbia University where he quarterbacked the football team and pitched on the baseball team. Following Columbia, Judge Altman went on to study at Yale Law where he served as Projects Editor for the Yale Law Journal.After Yale, Judge Altman went on to serve as a federal prosecutor, twice receiving the Director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys' Award for Superior Performance. After several years as a partner in a law firm, on April 4, 2019, Judge Altman was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. At 36 years old, Judge Altman became the youngest federal district court judge in the country and the youngest federal judge ever appointed in the Southern District of Florida.In my opinion, you are about to meet a generational mind. Born in 1982, Judge Altman is technically a millennial. Forget millennials, few Boomers or Gen Xers have reached the heights Judge Altman has obtained. To put it into context, in the United States, there are 1.35 million lawyers, and 30,000 of them are judges. Of that 30,000, only 870 are Article III judges. This means that after graduating law school, a lawyer has a 0.064% chance of becoming an Article III judge.It isn't an overstatement to say that Judge Altman is one of the most accomplished individuals in America. But this achievement isn't what is most impressive about him. What makes Judge Altman outstanding is his moral leadership.An example of his moral leadership is highlighted in a recent article in Bloomberg.In my view, Judge Altman is setting the type of example Americans should follow. He is pursuing an honest and fact-based discussion about the conflict while refusing to cower to the mob of moral relativism.When I think about Judge Altman and his actions after October 7, I recall a quote from the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks as he analyzed Esther's plea: “How can I stand and watch disaster befall my people?” To this, Rabbi Sacks said, “To be moral is to live with and for others, sharing their responsibility, participating in their suffering, protesting their wrongs, arguing their cause.”Thankfully, because of Judge Altman, we have one of the great legal minds of the 21st century arguing the cause of Israel, the Jewish people, and all of Western civilization.

Ravi breaks down what you need to know about the second controversial flag spotted outside one of Justice Alito's properties, the leaked OpenAI documents, and why a majority of Americans wrongly believe the U.S. is in a recession. Mayor Eric Adams wants to make New York City the “City of Yes.” Thesis Driven's Brad Hargreaves joins Ravi to discuss the mayor's rezoning proposal, which would roll back regulations that have long hindered housing development. Ravi and Brad also take a look at the current and future state of key influencers on the housing market, from fertility and marriage rates to immigration. Finally, the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced that it has applied for arrest warrants for Hamas and Israeli leaders. Oona Hathaway, Yale Law professor and international law expert, joins the pod to help explain what the ICC is and talk with Ravi about how Israel, Hamas, and the U.S. could respond. Leave us a voicemail with your thoughts on the show! 321-200-0570 Subscribe to our feed on Spotify: http://bitly.ws/zC9K Subscribe to our Substack: https://thelostdebate.substack.com/ Follow The Branch on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thebranchmedia/ Follow The Branch on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebranchmedia Follow The Branch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thebranchmedia The Branch website: http://thebranchmedia.org/ The Branch channel: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/channel/the-branch/id6483055204  Lost Debate is also available on the following platforms:  Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lost-debate/id1591300785 Google: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vTERJNTc1ODE3Mzk3Nw  iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-lost-debate-88330217/ Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/752ca262-2801-466d-9654-2024de72bd1f/the-lost-debate