Podcasts about Yale Law School

OA1208 - We go beyond the Trump-related content in the latest round of Epstein disclosures by the House Oversight Committee to explore what we can learn from the many people in Jeffrey Epstein's orbit who flattered, patronized, and enabled him. Part 1 of 2. Searchable database of Epstein records released by Courier  Falling Upward: The Surprising Survival of Larry Summers, Robert Kuttner, The American Prospect (7/13/2020) Investigation at Yale Law School, Dahlia Lithwick & Susan Matthews, Slate (10/5/2018) Report on Sexual Harassment at Yale, Yale Law Women Board (10/2020) Watch this episode on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/2NX71EJ8nJc Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

In this week's episode, host Ryan Coonerty speaks with Harris County, TX, County Commissioner Lesley Briones, who explains her role representing the third-largest county in the country with a population larger than 26 U.S. States and 34 cities. Ryan and Briones discuss her journey as a Harvard and Yale Law School graduate who became a public school teacher and then a judge, and how her parents instilled in her the belief that she should always help others. Briones talks about navigating the chaos left by the Trump administration—including Governor Abbott's redistricting plan —how faith continues to ground her work, and how growing up as a daughter of teachers and a proud Latina on the Texas–Mexico border has given her resilience. Tune in to learn why Commissioner Briones believes Texas can become a swing state (spoiler: it's so close).  IN THIS EPISODE:  • [01:03] Commissioner Briones' background and entry into public service. • [02:16] The role of a County Commissioner and what that means in Harris. • [04:07] Federal challenges that Harris County faces under the Trump administration. • [10:30] Attempts to work collaboratively in the face of troubling bills. • [13:13] Staying hopeful and engaged for the generation to come. • [17:06] Sentiment towards the current administration in Harris County. • [18:51] How Commissioner Briones' background informs her work in local government. • [22:55] Her path to public service in 2019 and how it differs from working as a judge. • [30:15] Embracing faith and inclusivity as a Democratic leader.

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

This podcast episode commemorates Veterans Day on November 11, 2025, by delving into the rich tapestry of football history through the lens of a remarkable figure, Bib Graves. Graves, a notable athlete, played an instrumental role in the formative years of both Alabama and Texas football, thereby establishing an enduring legacy within the sport. Our esteemed guest, Timothy P. Brown, elucidates Graves's dual contributions as a player and a prominent political figure, having served as the governor of Alabama. We explore the fascinating trajectory of Graves's life, from his athletic endeavors to his military service in World War I, and ultimately to his governorship, illustrating how his experiences intertwined with the evolution of college football. Join us as we uncover the historical significance of Bib Graves and reflect on the profound impact of his multifaceted life in American football history.The discussion is based on one of, guest Tim Brown's recent tidbits titled: Bibb Graves, Founding Member of Alabama and Texas Football Join us at the Pigskin Dispatch website to see even more Positive football news! Don't forget to check out and subscribe to the Pigskin Dispatch YouTube channel for additional content and the regular Football History Minute Shorts.Miss our football by the day of the year podcasts, well don't, because they can still be found at the Pigskin Dispatch website. The Pigskin Daily History Dispatch presents an exploration of the life and legacy of Bib Graves, a significant yet often overlooked figure in American football history. As the episode coincides with Veterans Day, the discussion delves into Graves's multifaceted identity as a football player, attorney, and politician. Graves is notably recognized for being a founding member of both the University of Alabama and the University of Texas football programs, contributing to the development of these storied institutions. The narrative unfolds with insights from Timothy P. Brown, who recounts Graves's journey from a prominent football player at Alabama—where he participated in the inaugural Iron Bowl—to his legal studies at the University of Texas, before ultimately transferring to Yale Law School. Despite his athletic prowess during a period when football was still in its nascent stages, Graves's contributions extended far beyond the gridiron, culminating in his service as a twice-elected governor of Alabama and a military veteran of World War I, thus bridging the realms of sports, law, and public service.

In this episode, we're joined by Mahdavi Singh Deputy Director of the Thurman Arnold Project and Resident Fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School to discuss how Google's integration of A.I. overviews could extend its search monopoly and the legal arguments that it could violate antitrust law.

In this powerful episode of The Hen Report, Mariann Sullivan and Jasmin Singer speak with Steffen Seitz, a Yale Law School graduate and fellow with the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project at the University of Denver, about critical legal developments affecting animal rights activism across the United States. This episode explores: The recent conviction of activist Zoe Rosenberg on felony and…

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

Founder of Fireside Project, Joshua White, reflects on becoming a ‘loving rock' and how Ram Dass's teachings sparked his creation of a psychedelic peer support line.Today's podcast is brought to you by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/beherenow and get on your way to being your best self.This time on the BHNN Guest Podcast, Joshua White outlines:How Joshua grew up feeling alienated from his Jewish rootsThe realization that we truly can just be observers of our own thoughtsThe inner knowing that there is more to this world Service as the highest form of psychedelic integrationBeing a ‘loving-rock' for people in a psychedelic experienceBecoming an environment in which someone can come up for airConnecting with our sense of ‘enoughness' rather than brokennessActive listening and simply showing up for another person as a loving witnessWelcoming all emotions and not referring to any as ‘wrong'About Joshua White:Joshua (he/him) is Fireside Project's founder, the world's first psychedelic peer support line. He is a lawyer, peer support advocate, and psychedelic researcher who believes in the power of peer support and the role of support lines as foundational components of an equitable mental-health ecosystem.Prior to founding Fireside Project, Joshua volunteered for many years as a counselor on Safe & Sound's TALK Line and a psychedelic peer support provider for the Zendo Project.Before devoting his life to the psychedelic field, Joshua spent more than a decade as a Deputy City Attorney at the San Francisco City Attorney's Office, where he focused on suing businesses exploiting vulnerable communities, serving as general counsel to City departments, and co-teaching a nationally renowned clinic at Yale Law School. He also clerked on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and practiced civil litigation at Conrad | Metlitzky | Kane. “Ram Dass's experience encountering Maharaj-ji and having these magical experiences with him and all of the impact LSD and other psychedelics had on him, really showed me that these substances could be responsible tools for profound inner work.” –Joshua WhiteAbout The Host, Jackie Dobrinska:Jackie Dobrinska is the Director of Education, Community & Inclusion for Ram Dass' Love, Serve, Remember Foundation and the current host of Ram Dass' Here & Now podcast. She is also a teacher, coach, and spiritual director with the privilege of marrying two decades of mystical studies with 15 years of expertise in holistic wellness. As an inter-spiritual minister, Jackie was ordained in Creation Spirituality in 2016 and has also studied extensively in several other lineages – the plant-medicine-based Pachakuti Mesa Tradition, Sri Vidya Tantra, Western European Shamanism, Christian Mysticism, the Wise Woman Tradition, and others. Today, in addition to building courses and community for LSRF, she leads workshops and coaches individuals to discover, nourish and live from their most authentic selves. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Lane Blumenfeld is the Chief Legal Officer for Data Driven Holdings (DDH). Through its portfolio companies, headed by TEAM VELOCITY, DDH has become a market leader of data-powered technology and marketing solutions for the automotive industry. Lane was named a Top 50 Corporate Counsel by OnCon. Lane holds a JD from Yale Law School, an MA in international affairs from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), and a BA magna cum laude from Cornell University. In this episode… The pressure on companies to deliver faster, more personalized digital experiences often conflicts with their privacy and security obligations. General counsels sit at the center of this tension, balancing the business value of personal data with the need to protect it. That's why their involvement early in product development is essential. Working with product and engineering teams from the start allows legal teams to build safeguards into design, before products and services reach customers. So, how can companies find the right balance without compromising privacy and security?  AI also adds a new layer of complexity. As companies use it to analyze data, refine customer targeting, and generate marketing content, legal teams and general counsels are adapting to evolving regulations. While clean, reliable data is essential, general counsels need to evaluate accuracy and bias to ensure responsible use. Even as AI advances, fundamental privacy and security principles still apply. That's why it's important for organizations to take ownership of their privacy practices, especially when it comes to privacy notices and vendor relationships. Companies shouldn't depend on generic privacy notices or third-party templates that fail to reflect their actual data handling practices. Vendor contracts need equal attention, with privacy and cybersecurity provisions that mirror company commitments to consumers, since one vendor's mistake can create significant risk. In this episode of She Said Privacy/He Said Security, Jodi and Justin Daniels talk with Lane Blumenfeld, Chief Legal Officer at Data Driven Holdings, about how general counsels can balance innovation with privacy and security. Lane explains how early legal involvement helps embed privacy and security into product design. He emphasizes that clear, accurate privacy notices and well-structured vendor contracts are essential for reducing privacy and security risks and maintaining accountability. And, as AI reshapes compliance obligations, Lane highlights the need for defined ownership across legal, product, and vendor teams and why companies sometimes need to walk away from vendors that expose them to excessive risk.

On this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, we take another look at the reasoning behind the deals law firms struck with the Trump administration earlier this year to avoid punitive executive orders. We previously heard from Yale Law School professor John Morley, who said these firms had no choice because an executive order could have kickstarted a devastating run on the partnership. Today's podcast guest sees it differently. David McGowan, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, says the firms that settled did so because they forgot the unique role they play in the American justice system and, instead, see themselves as more of business venture. "To me, the firms that have come to terms with the administration are signaling that, at their essence, they are financial services, financial adviser companies," he said. "I don't think that that is a given. I think that that is a choice." Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Linda Greenhouse, one of the nation's preeminent voices on the U.S. Supreme Court, joins renowned journalist Patt Morrison for a powerful conversation about the Court's influence on American democracy. Greenhouse will discuss the evolving role of the judiciary, landmark decisions, political pressures on the Court, and insights from her decades covering its inner workings.Linda Greenhouse reported on the Supreme Court for over 30 years for The New York Times. She is currently the Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence and Joseph M. Goldstein Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School. Her books include Before Roe v. Wade, The Burger Court and the Rise of the Judicial Right, and Justice on the Brink: A Requiem for the Supreme Court.Patt Morrison is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist, columnist, and radio/television host. She has earned multiple Emmys, Golden Mike Awards, and authored bestselling books including Rio LA and Don't Stop the Presses! Truth, Justice, and the American Newspaper.This event is part of the America at a Crossroads virtual series, founded by Jews United for Democracy & Justice and Community Advocates, Inc., bringing leading voices together to examine the most urgent issues facing our democracy.

The book is called "Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future." Author Dan Wang (WONG) was born in China in 1992. His parents moved to Canada when he was seven. In 2014, he graduated from the University of Rochester in New York. Then in 2018, Dan Wang went to live in China until he returned to the US in 2023. He then went to the offices of the Yale Law School and wrote about his comparison of China and the United States. He writes in his introduction: "A strain of materialism, often crass, runs through both countries, sometimes producing variations of successful entrepreneurs, sometimes creating displays of extraordinary tastelessness and overall contributing to a spirit of vigorous competition." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After earning a journalism degree at the University of Missouri, Strobel was awarded a Ford Foundation fellowship to study at Yale Law School, where he received a Master of Studies in Law degree. For fourteen years he was a journalist at the Chicago Tribune and other newspapers, winning Illinois' top honors for investigative reporting (which he shared with a team he led) and public service journalism from United Press International. He is a New York Times bestselling author whose books have sold millions of copies worldwide. We'll be talking today primarily about his new book Seeing the Supernatural: Investigating Angels, Demons, Mystical Dreams, Near-Death Encounters, and Other Mysteries of the Unseen World. Become a monthly donor today, join the Table. For more Axis resources, go to axis.org.

The book is called "Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future." Author Dan Wang was born in China in 1992. His parents moved to Canada when he was seven. In 2014, he graduated from the University of Rochester in New York. Then in 2018, Dan Wang went to live in China until he returned to the US in 2023. He then went to the offices of the Yale Law School and wrote about his comparison of China and the United States. He writes in his introduction: "A strain of materialism, often crass, runs through both countries, sometimes producing variations of successful entrepreneurs, sometimes creating displays of extraordinary tastelessness and overall contributing to a spirit of vigorous competition." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Emily Bazelon, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, co-host of Slate's "Political Gabfest" podcast, Truman Capote fellow for creative writing and law at Yale Law School and author of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution  and End Mass Incarceration (Random House, 2019) , previews the cases the Supreme Court will take up in its new term, including arguments on a redistricting case they are hearing arguments on this week, and offers analysis of just how much presidential power the court will afford to President Trump in upcoming decisions.

The Supreme Court has, over the past few years, opted to grant the federal government and the executive branch more and more leeway. On Today's Show:Emily Bazelon, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, co-host of Slate's "Political Gabfest" podcast, Truman Capote fellow for creative writing and law at Yale Law School and author of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution  and End Mass Incarceration (Random House, 2019) previews the cases the Supreme Court will take up in its new term, including a redistricting case they are hearing arguments on this week, and offers analysis of just how much presidential power the court will afford to President Trump in upcoming decisions.

Rachel Frank is a senior associate at Quinn Emanuel who focuses on appellate litigation. She discusses the journey from summer associate to working on cases before the Supreme Court. Rachel explains what appellate practice actually involves, from preparing partners for oral arguments through intensive moot courts to crafting persuasive appellate briefs. She discusses how she uses AI as a thinking partner, the value of her federal appellate clerkship, and how her work has evolved over time. Rachel reflects on some of her firm's cultural quirks and why they matter to her. She also candidly discusses managing work-life balance. Rachel is a graduate of Yale Law School.This episode is hosted by Kyle McEntee.Mentioned in this episode:Colorado LawLearn more about Colorado LawAccess LawHub today!

Trade tensions between the US and China have hit a new high mark. Last week, after China announced plans to ratchet up its export controls of some rare-earths and magnets with strategic uses, President Trump threatened to retaliate with 100% tariffs, which would go into effect on November 1 or sooner. But the competition between these two world powers goes far beyond trade disputes and tariffs. It's a contest between fundamentally different approaches to governance, technology, and economic development. China, of course, dominates critical supply chains for clean energy technologies. But many of the innovations that spawned those technologies were born here in the US. China builds, and governs through strong state control. The US innovates, but struggles to build. How did these two nations develop such different capabilities? What does China's dominance in manufacturing mean for American competitiveness and national security? And can the United States learn from China's approach to building at scale without sacrificing democratic values and individual rights?  This week, Jason Bordoff speaks with Dan Wang about his recent book Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future. They discuss the book's framing — that China is an engineering state and America as a lawyerly society — and how those orientations undergird what, and how, these world powers produce. Dan is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab and studies China's technological capabilities. He was previously a fellow at the Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center and a lecturer at Yale University's MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies.  Credits: Hosted by Jason Bordoff and Bill Loveless. Produced by Mary Catherine O'Connor, Caroline Pitman, and Kyu Lee. Engineering by Gregory Vilfranc.  

Troops on America's streets, threats of “plenary powers”, and extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean have prompted members of the military past and present to say that we are in the biggest civil/military crisis since the Civil War. On this week's Amicus, how SCOTUS' immunity decision in Trump v. United States helped deliver us to this scary moment. Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Yale Law School military justice expert Eugene Fidell and former JAG Maj. General Steven J. Lepper about the impossible position the military's been put in by Trump and SCOTUS and how bad that is for all of us. The Crisis in Uniform: The Danger of Presidential Immunity for the U.S. Military. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Troops on America's streets, threats of “plenary powers”, and extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean have prompted members of the military past and present to say that we are in the biggest civil/military crisis since the Civil War. On this week's Amicus, how SCOTUS' immunity decision in Trump v. United States helped deliver us to this scary moment. Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Yale Law School military justice expert Eugene Fidell and former JAG Maj. General Steven J. Lepper about the impossible position the military's been put in by Trump and SCOTUS and how bad that is for all of us. The Crisis in Uniform: The Danger of Presidential Immunity for the U.S. Military. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Troops on America's streets, threats of “plenary powers”, and extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean have prompted members of the military past and present to say that we are in the biggest civil/military crisis since the Civil War. On this week's Amicus, how SCOTUS' immunity decision in Trump v. United States helped deliver us to this scary moment. Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Yale Law School military justice expert Eugene Fidell and former JAG Maj. General Steven J. Lepper about the impossible position the military's been put in by Trump and SCOTUS and how bad that is for all of us. The Crisis in Uniform: The Danger of Presidential Immunity for the U.S. Military. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of The Rainmaking Podcast, Scott Love welcomes Jordana Confino, founder of JC Coaching and Consulting and author of the blog Chronicles of a Recovering Type A+ Perfectionist, to explore “The Perfectionist Paradox.” Jordana explains that perfectionism is not about high standards—it's a fear- and shame-based mindset driven by self-doubt and the need to prove worth. She reveals how this approach undermines both mental health and performance, blocking creativity, risk-taking, and authentic business development. Drawing on neuroscience and positive psychology, she describes how to replace the inner critic's harsh voice with self-compassion, rewiring the brain through neuroplasticity to enhance confidence and performance. Jordana shares practical strategies to help high-achieving professionals and lawyers break free from destructive perfectionism. These include “drawing your critic” to externalize self-judgment, practicing compassionate self-talk, and identifying core values to shift from fear-based motivation to values-driven achievement. By replacing self-criticism with self-compassion and clarity, professionals can perform at a higher level, strengthen resilience, and enjoy greater fulfillment in their careers and lives. Visit: https://therainmakingpodcast.com/ YouTube: https://youtu.be/Td8DVO6nlZM ----------------------------------------

Superpowers for Good should not be considered investment advice. Seek counsel before making investment decisions. When you purchase an item, launch a campaign or create an investment account after clicking a link here, we may earn a fee. Engage to support our work.Watch the show on television by downloading the e360tv channel app to your Roku, LG or AmazonFireTV. You can also see it on YouTube.Devin: What is your superpower? Jenny: Inclusive capital advocacy.The future of regulated investment crowdfunding is being shaped not just by markets but by the voices that advocate for fair, effective policies in Washington. Jenny Kassan, President of the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA), has emerged as a leading champion of this work. The association's upcoming summit and the advocacy efforts that precede it illustrate the growing momentum behind this movement.Jenny explained, “The Crowdfunding Professional Association represents the crowdfunding industry, the regulated investment crowdfunding industry. This is everyone who's involved in trying to make it easier for small businesses, entrepreneurs, changemakers, artists, everyone who has the ability to offer an investment opportunity to be able to offer it to everybody, everybody in the country.”The October summit in Washington, D.C., highlights the growing traction of this movement. Jenny shared that this year, the CfPA is securing more meetings with members of Congress and the Senate who influence financial market rules. That progress signals a growing recognition of the industry's role in democratizing access to capital.Speakers at the summit will include SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, known for her balanced approach to fostering innovation while maintaining sensible regulation, and James Murphy from FINRA, the body overseeing day-to-day regulation of crowdfunding platforms. These perspectives, alongside industry leaders like Mark Elenowitz, will help issuers, investors, and platforms better navigate the complex regulatory landscape.Jenny was candid about the rapid changes unfolding in this space, especially around emerging technologies like crypto. “The industry is really evolving quickly. Even though there haven't been any law changes yet, there's been a huge, huge evolution and rapid change in the space,” she noted. Panels on crypto and digital assets will explore how innovation intersects with regulation, underscoring the importance of ongoing dialogue with policymakers.The CfPA summit is more than a conference. It is the culmination of months of advocacy, uniting stakeholders to strengthen the rules that govern investment crowdfunding. By convening entrepreneurs, investors, regulators, and industry professionals, the event will serve as a platform to share knowledge, influence policy, and build momentum for greater capital access.Jenny's leadership highlights that regulated investment crowdfunding is still young but brimming with potential. Her efforts—and those of the CfPA—help ensure the system grows into a tool that works for everyone.tl;dr:Jenny Kassan explained how the Crowdfunding Professional Association advocates in Washington to strengthen rules for regulated investment crowdfunding.She shared details about the upcoming summit, including meetings with legislators, regulators, and key industry experts.Jenny emphasized the importance of balanced regulation, highlighting insights from SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce and FINRA's James Murphy.She described how crowdfunding empowers underrepresented entrepreneurs, often outperforming traditional fundraising sources like venture capital and banks.Jenny encouraged participation in the CfPA and its summit, reminding listeners that inclusive access to capital benefits everyone.How to Develop Inclusive Capital Advocacy As a SuperpowerJenny described her superpower as her ability to advocate for inclusive access to capital. She explained that her passion lies in helping entrepreneurs—especially those underrepresented in traditional finance—gain the resources they need to thrive. As she put it, “We see like women, people of color, people that don't come from the top schools or from wealthy families often are quite successful with regulation crowdfunding, sometimes even more so. That's the reason I love the tool so much.”Her superpower is evident in her consistent championing of entrepreneurs who face barriers to traditional funding. By focusing on regulated investment crowdfunding, she empowers founders to bypass gatekeepers and reach communities of investors who share their vision.One story illustrates this clearly: Jenny highlighted data showing that diverse and under-resourced founders often raise more successfully through crowdfunding than through venture capital, angel groups, or banks. That success proves that crowdfunding levels the playing field. For Jenny, seeing women and people of color outperform traditional fundraising norms affirms the power of her mission.Jenny offered valuable insights for developing this superpower:Recognize who is excluded by traditional systems and design new ways to include them.Focus on building tools and structures that make participation easier for everyone.Ground advocacy in data that demonstrates success outside the status quo.Persist in championing change even when mainstream systems resist.By following Jenny's example and advice, you can make inclusive capital advocacy a skill. With practice and effort, you could make it a superpower that enables you to do more good in the world.Remember, however, that research into success suggests that building on your own superpowers is more important than creating new ones or overcoming weaknesses. You do you!Guest ProfileJenny Kassan (she/her):President, Crowdfunding Professional AssociationAbout Crowdfunding Professional Association: The Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA) is a 501 (c)(6) nonprofit trade organization established by numerous authors and contributors to the Jumpstart Our Business Startup Act (“JOBS Act”) on April 5, 2012. The CfPA is dedicated to representing the Crowdfunding industry and supporting the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) while providing the industry with education, a professional network and the tools necessary to cultivate and balance a healthy ecosystem that will accelerate capital formation and ensure investor protection whenever possible. Join our association at https://www.crowdfundingecosystem.com/join or get your company listed with a microsite in the CfPA online ECO directory at: https://www.crowdfundingecosystem.com/upgrade/upgradeWebsite: crowdfundingecosystem.comLinkedin: linkedin.com/company/crowdfunding-professional-associationCompany Facebook Page: facebook.com/CrowdfundingProfessionalAssociationOther URL: events.humanitix.com/regulated-investment-crowdfunding-summit-2025Biographical Information: Jenny Kassan is an attorney, community economic development leader, and nationally recognized advocate for mission-driven entrepreneurship. With nearly 30 years of experience, she has dedicated her career to helping founders raise capital on their own terms while building wealth that stays rooted in local communities. She is the CEO of Baltimore Community Commons, which fosters investment access, knowledge sharing, and mutual aid, and the owner of The Kassan Group, a boutique law firm serving impact entrepreneurs. Jenny is also the author of Raise Capital on Your Own Terms: How to Fund Your Business Without Selling Your Soul and a frequent speaker on innovative finance, sustainable business, and community wealth building.Jenny's leadership extends across the national crowdfunding and economic justice ecosystem. She currently serves as President of the Crowdfunding Professional Association and President of Community Ventures, and previously co-founded CrowdFund Main Street and the Sustainable Economies Law Center. Her public service includes serving on the Fremont City Council, advising the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on small and emerging companies, and directing community projects at the Alameda County District Attorney's Office. A graduate of Yale Law School and UC Berkeley, Jenny continues to shape policies and practices that empower entrepreneurs while advancing a more equitable economy.X/Twitter Handle: @jennykassanPersonal Facebook Profile: facebook.com/jenny.kassanLinkedin: linkedin.com/in/jennykassanInstagram Handle: @thekassangroupSupport Our SponsorsOur generous sponsors make our work possible, serving impact investors, social entrepreneurs, community builders and diverse founders. Today's advertisers include FundingHope, Rancho Affordable Housing (Proactive), and Power Up October. Learn more about advertising with us here.Max-Impact MembersThe following Max-Impact Members provide valuable financial support:Carol Fineagan, Independent Consultant | Hiten Sonpal, RISE Robotics | Lory Moore, Lory Moore Law | Mark Grimes, Networked Enterprise Development | Matthew Mead, Hempitecture | Michael Pratt, Qnetic | Dr. Nicole Paulk, Siren Biotechnology | Paul Lovejoy, Stakeholder Enterprise | Pearl Wright, Global Changemaker | Scott Thorpe, Philanthropist | Sharon Samjitsingh, Health Care Originals | Add Your Name HereUpcoming SuperCrowd Event CalendarIf a location is not noted, the events below are virtual.Superpowers for Good Live Pitch on October 6, 2025, hosted by Devin Thorpe on e360tv, will feature Core Tax Deeds, Dopple, ProActive Realty Group, and Victory Hemp Foods pitching their active Regulation Crowdfunding campaigns to a nationwide audience. Viewers can vote for their favorite companies, win prizes, ask live questions, and join a private investor Zoom session to engage directly with founders and even invest during the show. Don't miss this free chance to discover and support purpose-driven startups—register here: https://thesupercrowd.com/25q3pitchSuperCrowdHour, October 15, 2025, at 12:00 PM Eastern. Devin Thorpe, CEO and Founder of The Super Crowd, Inc., will lead a session on “The Perfect Pitch: Creating an Irresistible Offering.” As a former investment banker and author, Devin will guide entrepreneurs through the process of crafting a regulated investment crowdfunding offering that aligns with investor expectations and captures attention. In this session, he'll share what makes a pitch compelling, how to structure terms that attract capital, and practical strategies for presenting your company's story in a way that resonates with investors. Whether you're launching your first community raise or refining a current campaign, this SuperCrowdHour will equip you with the tools to stand out and secure investor support. Don't miss this opportunity to learn how to transform your vision into a pitch investors can't resist.Impact Cherub Club Meeting hosted by The Super Crowd, Inc., a public benefit corporation, on October 28, 2025, at 1:30 PM Eastern. Each month, the Club meets to review new offerings for investment consideration and to conduct due diligence on previously screened deals. To join the Impact Cherub Club, become an Impact Member of the SuperCrowd.SuperGreen Live, January 22–24, 2026, livestreaming globally. Organized by Green2Gold and The Super Crowd, Inc., this three-day event will spotlight the intersection of impact crowdfunding, sustainable innovation, and climate solutions. Featuring expert-led panels, interactive workshops, and live pitch sessions, SuperGreen Live brings together entrepreneurs, investors, policymakers, and activists to explore how capital and climate action can work hand in hand. With global livestreaming, VIP networking opportunities, and exclusive content, this event will empower participants to turn bold ideas into real impact. Don't miss your chance to join tens of thousands of changemakers at the largest virtual sustainability event of the year.Community Event CalendarSuccessful Funding with Karl Dakin, Tuesdays at 10:00 AM ET - Click on Events.KingsCrowd Investment Crowdfunding Week: September 29 through October 2nd, featuring speakers, panels and live pitches. Free registration!Earthstock Festival & Summit (Oct 2–5, 2025, Santa Monica & Venice, CA) unites music, arts, ecology, health, and green innovation for four days of learning, networking, and celebration. Register now at EarthstockFestival.com.Regulated Investment Crowdfunding Summit 2025, Crowdfunding Professional Association, Washington, DC, October 21-22, 2025.Impact Accelerator Summit is a live, in-person event taking place in Austin, Texas, from October 23–25, 2025. This exclusive gathering brings together 100 heart-centered, conscious entrepreneurs generating $1M+ in revenue with 20–30 family offices and venture funds actively seeking to invest in world-changing businesses. Referred by Michael Dash, participants can expect an inspiring, high-impact experience focused on capital connection, growth, and global impact.If you would like to submit an event for us to share with the 9,500+ changemakers, investors and entrepreneurs who are members of the SuperCrowd, click here.We use AI to help us write compelling recaps of each episode. Get full access to Superpowers for Good at www.superpowers4good.com/subscribe

In this powerful and vulnerable episode of the Let's Get Real Podcast, Justin and Trish sit down with bestselling author, speaker, and podcast host Mary Marantz. From growing up in a single-wide trailer in rural West Virginia to graduating from Yale Law School, Mary's story is one of resilience, grit, and grace. Mary opens up about her journey of overcoming a scarcity mindset, wrestling with the wounds of childhood, and learning to expand her capacity for trust, worthiness, and calling. Together, we explore her latest book, Underestimated, where she takes a “systematic takedown of fear” and unpacks how fear shows up as perfectionism, procrastination, overthinking, imposter syndrome, and even a fear of success. If you've ever felt like your past disqualifies you, or if fear and self-sabotage have kept you from stepping into what God has for you, this conversation will encourage you to believe that your story is not defined by where you started. Links and Resources Connect with Mary Marantz: marymarantz.com Mary's book Underestimated: Order here Mary's first book Dirt: Order here Listen to The Mary Marantz Show: HERE Follow Mary on Instagram: @marymarantz Connect with Justin & Trisha: Website: justinandtrisha.com Instagram: @justindavis33 | @trishdavis_ Book: One Choice Away from Change – Order here

President Donald Trump's attacks on law firms have hand their intended impact, even as courts shoot down executive orders against some as unconstitutional and the details of White House deals with others remain unclear, according to Yale Law School professor John Morley. "The point here is to extract a demonstrative form of obedience," Morely said. He said he's already seen a "chilling effect" with firms less willing to take on matters pushing back against the administration than in Trump's first term. Morley, who has studied law firm collapses, does not blame the leaders of firms that struck deals with the White House to avoid punitive executive orders. Court wins for the four firms who have challenged orders targeting them so far show that those firms made the right, albeit risky, choice to fight. "I am absolutely certain that, if one of these executive orders survived a temporary injunction proceeding, that would be the death of the firm," Morley said. "Or at least I think the probability is very high." Morley spoke to Bloomberg Law reporter Roy Strom on this episode of our podcast, On The Merits, about what has become of Trump's attacks on Big Law and what would happen if the President resumed them. He also discussed how they've changed the attitudes of his students at Yale about which firms they may want to work at in the future. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

What if the secret to a longer, healthier, and more purposeful life isn't about diets or exercise routines, but about connection, purpose, and how we approach aging itself? In this conversation, Ken Stern author of the new book Healthy to 100: How Strong Social Ties Lead to Long Lives.  He shares powerful lessons from his travels across Asia and Europe, where he studied some of the most vibrant societies with a track record of longevity. From intergenerational living to lifelong learning, Ken challenges the way we think about retirement and shows how our later years can be a time of renewal, engagement, and meaning. If you've ever wondered how to thrive in the decades ahead, this episode will give you a fresh perspective—and the motivation to design your own path. Ken Stern joins us from Washington DC. _________________________ Bio Ken Stern is the Founder of the Longevity Project, which fosters public conversation on the impact on longer lives on civil society, and engages a global audience through events, research and newsletters. Stern is the host of the award-winning podcast Century Lives, from the Stanford Center on Longevity. Stern is the author of the new book Healthy to 100: How Strong Social Ties Lead to Long Lives. He has also been a regular contributor to a diverse group of publications such as Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, and Slate. He is also the CEO of Palisades Media Ventures, a Washington D.C. thought leadership company. Stern was previously the CEO of National Public Radio. Prior to joining NPR, Stern was a senior executive in American International Broadcasting, beginning his media career with Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty in Munich. Stern, a lawyer by training, holds degrees from Haverford College and Yale Law School. He lives in Washington, DC with his wife Beth and their son Nate. __________________________ For More on Ken Stern Healthy to 100: How Strong Social Ties Lead to Long Lives __________________________ Podcast Conversations You May Like The Super Age – Bradley Schurman Joyspan – Kerry Burnight, PhD Retiring: Creating a Life That Works for You – Teresa Amabile ___________________________ About The Retirement Wisdom Podcast There are many podcasts on retirement, often hosted by financial advisors with their own financial motives, that cover the money side of the street. This podcast is different. You'll get smarter about the investment decisions you'll make about the most important asset you'll have in retirement: your time. About Retirement Wisdom I help people who are retiring, but aren't quite done yet, discover what's next and build their custom version of their next life. A meaningful retirement doesn't just happen by accident. Schedule a call today to discuss how the Designing Your Life process created by Bill Burnett & Dave Evans can help you make your life in retirement a great one — on your own terms. About Your Podcast Host Joe Casey is an executive coach who helps people design their next life after their primary career and create their version of The Multipurpose Retirement.™ He created his own next chapter after a 26-year career at Merrill Lynch, where he was Senior Vice President and Head of HR for Global Markets & Investment Banking. Joe has earned Master's degrees from the University of Southern California in Gerontology (at age 60), the University of Pennsylvania, and Middlesex University (UK), a BA in Psychology from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and his coaching certification from Columbia University. In addition to his work with clients, Joe hosts The Retirement Wisdom Podcast, ranked in the top 1% globally in popularity by Listen Notes, with over 1.6 million downloads. Business Insider recognized Joe as one of 23 innovative coaches who are making a difference. He's the author of Win the Retirement Game: How to Outsmart the 9 Forces Trying to Steal Your Joy. ____________________________

Join us for Dan Wang's talk about the issues raised in his new book Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future, which has been called a riveting, firsthand investigation of China's seismic progress, its human costs, and what it means for America. For close to a decade, technology analyst Wang―“a gifted observer of contemporary China” (Ross Douthat)―has been living through the country's astonishing, messy progress. China's towering bridges, gleaming railways, and sprawling factories have improved economic outcomes in record time. But rapid change has also sent ripples of pain throughout the society. This reality―political repression and astonishing growth―is not a paradox, but rather a feature of China's engineering mindset. Wang blends political, economic, and philosophical analysis with reportage to reveal a provocative new framework for understanding China―one that can help us see America more clearly, too. While China is an engineering state, relentlessly pursuing megaprojects, the United States has stalled. America has transformed into a lawyerly society, reflexively blocking everything, good and bad. Mixing analysis with storytelling, Wang offers a gripping portrait of a nation in flux. He traverses metropolises like Shanghai, Chongqing and Shenzhen, where the engineering state has created not only dazzling infrastructure but also a sense of optimism. The book also exposes the downsides of social engineering, including the surveillance of ethnic minorities, political suppression, and the traumas of the one-child policy and zero-COVID. In an era of animosity and mistrust, Wang unmasks the shocking similarities between the United States and China. He reveals how each country points toward a better path for the other: Chinese citizens would be better off if their government could learn to value individual liberties, while Americans would be better off if their government could learn to embrace engineering―and to produce better outcomes for the many, not just the few. About the Speaker Dan Wang is a research fellow at the Hoover History Lab at Stanford University. He was previously a fellow at the Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center and the technology analyst at Gavekal Dragonomics. Wang is the author of an annual letter from China and has published essays in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Financial Times, New York magazine and The Atlantic. Organizer: Lillian Nakagawa  This program is supported by the Ken & Jaclyn Broad Family Fund. An Asia-Pacific Affairs Member-led Forum program. Forums at the Club are organized and run by volunteer programmers who are members of The Commonwealth Club, and they cover a diverse range of topics. Learn more about our Forums. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Superpowers for Good should not be considered investment advice. Seek counsel before making investment decisions. When you purchase an item, launch a campaign or create an investment account after clicking a link here, we may earn a fee. Engage to support our work.Watch the show on television by downloading the e360tv channel app to your Roku, LG or AmazonFireTV. You can also see it on YouTube.Devin: What is your superpower? Jenny: Inclusive capital advocacy.The future of regulated investment crowdfunding is being shaped not just by markets but by the voices that advocate for fair, effective policies in Washington. Jenny Kassan, President of the Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA), has emerged as a leading champion of this work. The association's upcoming summit and the advocacy efforts that precede it illustrate the growing momentum behind this movement.Jenny explained, “The Crowdfunding Professional Association represents the crowdfunding industry, the regulated investment crowdfunding industry. This is everyone who's involved in trying to make it easier for small businesses, entrepreneurs, changemakers, artists, everyone who has the ability to offer an investment opportunity to be able to offer it to everybody, everybody in the country.”The October summit in Washington, D.C., highlights the growing traction of this movement. Jenny shared that this year, the CfPA is securing more meetings with members of Congress and the Senate who influence financial market rules. That progress signals a growing recognition of the industry's role in democratizing access to capital.Speakers at the summit will include SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, known for her balanced approach to fostering innovation while maintaining sensible regulation, and James Murphy from FINRA, the body overseeing day-to-day regulation of crowdfunding platforms. These perspectives, alongside industry leaders like Mark Elenowitz, will help issuers, investors, and platforms better navigate the complex regulatory landscape.Jenny was candid about the rapid changes unfolding in this space, especially around emerging technologies like crypto. “The industry is really evolving quickly. Even though there haven't been any law changes yet, there's been a huge, huge evolution and rapid change in the space,” she noted. Panels on crypto and digital assets will explore how innovation intersects with regulation, underscoring the importance of ongoing dialogue with policymakers.The CfPA summit is more than a conference. It is the culmination of months of advocacy, uniting stakeholders to strengthen the rules that govern investment crowdfunding. By convening entrepreneurs, investors, regulators, and industry professionals, the event will serve as a platform to share knowledge, influence policy, and build momentum for greater capital access.Jenny's leadership highlights that regulated investment crowdfunding is still young but brimming with potential. Her efforts—and those of the CfPA—help ensure the system grows into a tool that works for everyone.tl;dr:Jenny Kassan explained how the Crowdfunding Professional Association advocates in Washington to strengthen rules for regulated investment crowdfunding.She shared details about the upcoming summit, including meetings with legislators, regulators, and key industry experts.Jenny emphasized the importance of balanced regulation, highlighting insights from SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce and FINRA's James Murphy.She described how crowdfunding empowers underrepresented entrepreneurs, often outperforming traditional fundraising sources like venture capital and banks.Jenny encouraged participation in the CfPA and its summit, reminding listeners that inclusive access to capital benefits everyone.How to Develop Inclusive Capital Advocacy As a SuperpowerJenny described her superpower as her ability to advocate for inclusive access to capital. She explained that her passion lies in helping entrepreneurs—especially those underrepresented in traditional finance—gain the resources they need to thrive. As she put it, “We see like women, people of color, people that don't come from the top schools or from wealthy families often are quite successful with regulation crowdfunding, sometimes even more so. That's the reason I love the tool so much.”Her superpower is evident in her consistent championing of entrepreneurs who face barriers to traditional funding. By focusing on regulated investment crowdfunding, she empowers founders to bypass gatekeepers and reach communities of investors who share their vision.One story illustrates this clearly: Jenny highlighted data showing that diverse and under-resourced founders often raise more successfully through crowdfunding than through venture capital, angel groups, or banks. That success proves that crowdfunding levels the playing field. For Jenny, seeing women and people of color outperform traditional fundraising norms affirms the power of her mission.Jenny offered valuable insights for developing this superpower:Recognize who is excluded by traditional systems and design new ways to include them.Focus on building tools and structures that make participation easier for everyone.Ground advocacy in data that demonstrates success outside the status quo.Persist in championing change even when mainstream systems resist.By following Jenny's example and advice, you can make inclusive capital advocacy a skill. With practice and effort, you could make it a superpower that enables you to do more good in the world.Remember, however, that research into success suggests that building on your own superpowers is more important than creating new ones or overcoming weaknesses. You do you!Guest ProfileJenny Kassan (she/her):President, Crowdfunding Professional AssociationAbout Crowdfunding Professional Association: The Crowdfunding Professional Association (CfPA) is a 501 (c)(6) nonprofit trade organization established by numerous authors and contributors to the Jumpstart Our Business Startup Act (“JOBS Act”) on April 5, 2012. The CfPA is dedicated to representing the Crowdfunding industry and supporting the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) while providing the industry with education, a professional network and the tools necessary to cultivate and balance a healthy ecosystem that will accelerate capital formation and ensure investor protection whenever possible. Join our association at https://www.crowdfundingecosystem.com/join or get your company listed with a microsite in the CfPA online ECO directory at: https://www.crowdfundingecosystem.com/upgrade/upgradeWebsite: crowdfundingecosystem.comLinkedin: linkedin.com/company/crowdfunding-professional-associationCompany Facebook Page: facebook.com/CrowdfundingProfessionalAssociationOther URL: events.humanitix.com/regulated-investment-crowdfunding-summit-2025Biographical Information: Jenny Kassan is an attorney, community economic development leader, and nationally recognized advocate for mission-driven entrepreneurship. With nearly 30 years of experience, she has dedicated her career to helping founders raise capital on their own terms while building wealth that stays rooted in local communities. She is the CEO of Baltimore Community Commons, which fosters investment access, knowledge sharing, and mutual aid, and the owner of The Kassan Group, a boutique law firm serving impact entrepreneurs. Jenny is also the author of Raise Capital on Your Own Terms: How to Fund Your Business Without Selling Your Soul and a frequent speaker on innovative finance, sustainable business, and community wealth building.Jenny's leadership extends across the national crowdfunding and economic justice ecosystem. She currently serves as President of the Crowdfunding Professional Association and President of Community Ventures, and previously co-founded CrowdFund Main Street and the Sustainable Economies Law Center. Her public service includes serving on the Fremont City Council, advising the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on small and emerging companies, and directing community projects at the Alameda County District Attorney's Office. A graduate of Yale Law School and UC Berkeley, Jenny continues to shape policies and practices that empower entrepreneurs while advancing a more equitable economy.X/Twitter Handle: @jennykassanPersonal Facebook Profile: facebook.com/jenny.kassanLinkedin: linkedin.com/in/jennykassanInstagram Handle: @thekassangroupSupport Our SponsorsOur generous sponsors make our work possible, serving impact investors, social entrepreneurs, community builders and diverse founders. Today's advertisers include FundingHope, Rancho Affordable Housing (Proactive), and Power Up October. Learn more about advertising with us here.Max-Impact MembersThe following Max-Impact Members provide valuable financial support:Carol Fineagan, Independent Consultant | Hiten Sonpal, RISE Robotics | Lory Moore, Lory Moore Law | Mark Grimes, Networked Enterprise Development | Matthew Mead, Hempitecture | Michael Pratt, Qnetic | Dr. Nicole Paulk, Siren Biotechnology | Paul Lovejoy, Stakeholder Enterprise | Pearl Wright, Global Changemaker | Scott Thorpe, Philanthropist | Sharon Samjitsingh, Health Care Originals | Add Your Name HereUpcoming SuperCrowd Event CalendarIf a location is not noted, the events below are virtual.Superpowers for Good Live Pitch on October 6, 2025, hosted by Devin Thorpe on e360tv, will feature Core Tax Deeds, Dopple, ProActive Realty Group, and Victory Hemp Foods pitching their active Regulation Crowdfunding campaigns to a nationwide audience. Viewers can vote for their favorite companies, win prizes, ask live questions, and join a private investor Zoom session to engage directly with founders and even invest during the show. Don't miss this free chance to discover and support purpose-driven startups—register here: https://thesupercrowd.com/25q3pitchSuperCrowdHour, October 15, 2025, at 12:00 PM Eastern. Devin Thorpe, CEO and Founder of The Super Crowd, Inc., will lead a session on “The Perfect Pitch: Creating an Irresistible Offering.” As a former investment banker and author, Devin will guide entrepreneurs through the process of crafting a regulated investment crowdfunding offering that aligns with investor expectations and captures attention. In this session, he'll share what makes a pitch compelling, how to structure terms that attract capital, and practical strategies for presenting your company's story in a way that resonates with investors. Whether you're launching your first community raise or refining a current campaign, this SuperCrowdHour will equip you with the tools to stand out and secure investor support. Don't miss this opportunity to learn how to transform your vision into a pitch investors can't resist.Impact Cherub Club Meeting hosted by The Super Crowd, Inc., a public benefit corporation, on October 28, 2025, at 1:30 PM Eastern. Each month, the Club meets to review new offerings for investment consideration and to conduct due diligence on previously screened deals. To join the Impact Cherub Club, become an Impact Member of the SuperCrowd.SuperGreen Live, January 22–24, 2026, livestreaming globally. Organized by Green2Gold and The Super Crowd, Inc., this three-day event will spotlight the intersection of impact crowdfunding, sustainable innovation, and climate solutions. Featuring expert-led panels, interactive workshops, and live pitch sessions, SuperGreen Live brings together entrepreneurs, investors, policymakers, and activists to explore how capital and climate action can work hand in hand. With global livestreaming, VIP networking opportunities, and exclusive content, this event will empower participants to turn bold ideas into real impact. Don't miss your chance to join tens of thousands of changemakers at the largest virtual sustainability event of the year.Community Event CalendarSuccessful Funding with Karl Dakin, Tuesdays at 10:00 AM ET - Click on Events.KingsCrowd Investment Crowdfunding Week: September 29 through October 2nd, featuring speakers, panels and live pitches. Free registration!Earthstock Festival & Summit (Oct 2–5, 2025, Santa Monica & Venice, CA) unites music, arts, ecology, health, and green innovation for four days of learning, networking, and celebration. Register now at EarthstockFestival.com.Regulated Investment Crowdfunding Summit 2025, Crowdfunding Professional Association, Washington, DC, October 21-22, 2025.Impact Accelerator Summit is a live, in-person event taking place in Austin, Texas, from October 23–25, 2025. This exclusive gathering brings together 100 heart-centered, conscious entrepreneurs generating $1M+ in revenue with 20–30 family offices and venture funds actively seeking to invest in world-changing businesses. Referred by Michael Dash, participants can expect an inspiring, high-impact experience focused on capital connection, growth, and global impact.If you would like to submit an event for us to share with the 9,500+ changemakers, investors and entrepreneurs who are members of the SuperCrowd, click here.We use AI to help us write compelling recaps of each episode. Get full access to Superpowers for Good at www.superpowers4good.com/subscribe

Daniel P. Driscoll is the 26th Secretary of the Army, sworn in on February 25th, 2025, following his nomination by President Donald J. Trump and confirmation by the United States Senate. As Secretary of the Army, he oversees operations, modernization, and resource allocation for nearly one million Active, Guard, and Reserve Soldiers and more than 265,000 Army Civilians. A former Army officer and business leader, Secretary Driscoll brings experience spanning military service, law, and the private sector. Secretary Driscoll was commissioned in 2007 as an Armor Officer through the U.S. Army Officer Candidate School. While on active duty, he led a cavalry platoon in the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York, and deployed to Baghdad, Iraq, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2009. His military awards include the Army Commendation Medal, Ranger Tab, and Combat Action Badge. After departing active duty, Secretary Driscoll attended Yale Law School and worked in Yale's Veterans Legal Services Clinic. He has held leadership roles in investment banking, private equity, and business operations, including as Chief Operating Officer of a $200 million venture capital fund. Secretary Driscoll holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School. He is a member of the North Carolina State Bar, the Rotary Club, VFW Post 1134, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. A native of Boone, North Carolina, Secretary Driscoll comes from a family with a legacy of military service. His grandfather served in the Army during World War II as a decoder, and his father served during Vietnam as an infantryman. He is married to his high-school sweetheart, and they have two children. Shawn Ryan Show Sponsors: ⁠https://betterhelp.com/srs⁠ This episode is sponsored. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/srs and get on your way to being your best self. ⁠https://bruntworkwear.com⁠ – USE CODE SRS ⁠https://calderalab.com/srs⁠ Use code SRS for 20% off your first order. ⁠https://meetfabric.com/shawn⁠ ⁠https://shawnlikesgold.com⁠ ⁠https://helixsleep.com/srs⁠ ⁠https://www.hulu.com/welcome⁠ ⁠https://ketone.com/srs⁠ Visit https://ketone.com/srs for 30% OFF your subscription order. ⁠https://moinkbox.com/srs⁠ ⁠https://patriotmobile.com/srs⁠ ⁠https://rocketmoney.com/srs⁠ ⁠https://ROKA.com⁠ – USE CODE SRS ⁠https://ziprecruiter.com/srs Dan Driscoll Links: X - https://x.com/SecArmy U.S. Army Bio - https://www.army.mil/leaders/sa/bio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Law firms "have gold sitting on their hard drives," according to Yale Law School professor Scott Shapiro. Shapiro has enthusiastically embraced the use of generative AI in his classroom. He says firms should draw on the mountains of proprietary information at their fingertips to build their own tools. "If only they would train the large language models correctly, they, I believe, would get absolutely stupendous results," he said. Shapiro spoke to Bloomberg Law editor Jessie Kokrda Kamens for our podcast, On The Merits, about why he thinks every firm should make its own AI and he explains how he and his students actually did this themselves using years of documents from his Yale legal clinic. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

In the newest episode of An Armao Beyond the Brink, Rosemary speaks with renowned media lawyer and professor Lucy Dalglish. Dalglish cannot recall a time in American history when threats to a free and independent press were so numerous or potent. She doesn't even like thinking about the future of media because it's impossible to ignore the possibility that  Freedom of Thought and Expression  enshrined in the First Amendment are being crushed by censorship and lack of public support.Lucy Dalglish, as a reporter, media lawyer, and educator has been a standout player in American journalism for decades.  She was executive director for a dozen years of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press which provides free legal aid and other support to protect the news gathering rights of journalists. She left that position in 2012 to become dean of  the journalism school at the University of Maryland for 11 years. She still teaches media ethics and law there. Dalglish began her career in 1980 as a reporter and editor at the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Dalglish has been awarded the Kiplinger Award by the National Press Foundation in 2012 for her service to journalism. She was also awarded the Wells Memorial Key, the highest honor bestowed by the Society of Professional Journalists and is an inductee in the National Freedom of Information Act Hall of Fame in Washington, D.C. She holds a  juris doctor degree from Vanderbilt University Law School; a master of studies in law degree from Yale Law School and a bachelor of arts in journalism from the University of North Dakota.

In the season premiere of Season 8, your host Rusty Stahl (Founder, President & CEO of Fund the People) outlines the season's focus on strengthening and defending the nonprofit sector. He previews upcoming conversations with influential leaders such as Tonya Allen of McKnight Foundation, Deepak Bhargava of Freedom Together Foundation, and Michael Thatcher of Charity Navigator. Rusty shares a new Fund the People research report and webinar (10/10 at 10am PT) on ‘long-haul grantmaking' that emphasize better jobs in nonprofits and will be featured on the podcast this season, alongside a forthcoming concept from Fund the People called “Staff Operating Support” (or “S.O.S.”) Grants, a new type of strategic, responsive funding meant to provide direct investments in nonprofit workers.Rusty frames this season within the broader context of what he calls the Trump Administration's War on Charity (#TrumpWarOnCharity), citing efforts to undermine First Amendment freedoms, nonprofits, charitable giving, and the nonprofit workforce. He discusses how euphemisms have obscured the severity of these threats, and emphasizes the need to speak plainly about the challenges facing the sector. He encourages nonprofit leaders to stand in solidarity with all other nonprofits. He invites listeners to make their nonprofit values visible by wearing FTP Defend Nonprofits, Defend Democracy gear.The episode addresses current events, including the politicization of the horrific Charlie Kirk assassination, which Rusty argues has been exploited by the Trump Administration to justify attacks on progressive philanthropy and nonprofits. He details the flawed logic behind these narratives, putting his M.A. in Philanthropy from Indiana University up against a J.D. from Yale Law School. Finally, Rusty closes with a call to remain vigilant,and to follow Season 8 for research, tools, and practices to help you invest in the nonprofit workforce despite (or because of) the ongoing siege on our sector.Bio:Rusty Stahl serves as Founder, President, and CEO of Fund the People. Fund the People works to strengthen the effectiveness, impact, and sustainability of philanthropy and the social sector by maximizing investment in America's nonprofit workforce. Rusty is a tenacious, mission-focused thought-leader, social entrepreneur, and student of the field. Alongside his colleagues, Stahl has studied, developed ideas, and written extensively on what it takes to invest in the nonprofit workforce. This podcast is one of the places such exploration and learning takes place. Before launching the organization, Rusty completed R&D for Fund the People as a Visiting Scholar in Residence at NYU's Wagner School of Public Service. Previously he served as Founding Executive Director of Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy (EPIP) and as a Program Associate at the Ford Foundation. He holds an M.A. in Philanthropic Studies from Indiana University.Resources:Long-Haul Grantmaking report Long-Haul Grantmaking webinarMeet the Moment CommitmentUnite in AdvanceFund the People's Defend Nonprofits, Defend Democracy workFund the People's Defend Nonprofits, Defend Democracy Merch StoreRelated Episodes:MacArthur President Chooses Courage, Not Quiet - with John PalfreyNonprofits, The Constitution, and the ACLU - with Mike Zaymor, American Civil Liberties UnionMeet the Moment: A Call to Action for Funders - with Shaady Salehi, Trust-Based Philanthropy Project

Sarah Isgur and David French sit down with Justin Driver, the Robert R. Slaughter Professor of Law at Yale Law School, to talk about his new book, The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education. They explore the landmark case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, a ruling celebrated by conservatives as a victory for colorblind principles and criticized by progressives as a blow to racial equity. But according to Driver, both perspectives miss the mark. The Agenda:—DMing Pam Bondi?—Brendan Carr weaponizing the FCC—‘I sued the Obama administration.'—Victimization and mismatch in affirmative action arguments—SFFA and race neutral mechanisms—The future of race-neutral policies Show Notes:—The Morning Dispatch on the FCC Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, we're sharing a conversation with Jeffrey Rosen and constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School about his new book, Born Equal: Remaking America's Constitution, 1840–1920, which explores the transformative amendments that redefined freedom, equality, and voting rights in the post–Civil War era.  This program was recorded live in Philadelphia on September 16, 2025.  Stay Connected and Learn More  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr  Explore the⁠ ⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠ ⁠Sign up⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming⁠ ⁠⁠live program⁠ or watch recordings on⁠ ⁠⁠YouTube Support our important work:  ⁠Donate

Professor Judith Resnik and host Teneé Frazier discuss Judith's book 'Impermissible Punishments: How Prison Became a Problem for Democracy' – which explores the complex relationship between punishment, democracy, and social justice. Judith, a Professor of Law at Yale Law School, delves into the historical evolution of prisons in the UK, US, and Europe, as well as the role of constitutional law in shaping prisoners' treatment. Their conversation highlights the financial and social costs associated with incarceration, with Judith calling for reform of our penal systems to prevent lasting harm to individuals and communities.

Welcome to Dennis Prager’s Timeless Wisdom. Each Monday through Saturday, you’ll hear some of Dennis’s best lectures, talks, and series—with brief commercial breaks. To get the ad-free version of this podcast, and to access the full library of lectures, talks, and shows, visit dennisprager.com. On Today’s Show: Dennis talks to Logan Beirne, Olin Scholar at Yale Law School. His new book is Blood of Tyrants: George Washington and the Forging of the Presidency.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us a textWhat if we could bridge the generational divide while preserving the rich stories of our elders? This question drives Ariel Galinsky, founder of The Legacy Project, a nonprofit that pairs college students with older adults.Ariel's journey began with personal loss - her grandfather's passing when she was just ten, leaving stories uncaptured. While working in a senior community where her grandmother lived, she recognized a universal gap in intergenerational connection. This sparked what would become her life's mission: creating structured opportunities for meaningful conversations across age divides.The Legacy Project operates through campus chapters where students interview older adults throughout an academic year, ultimately publishing their collected stories. For many participants, this represents their first significant engagement with elders outside their families. The impact runs deeper than companionship - actively combating social isolation affecting both age groups while challenging pervasive ageist stereotypes that limit both generations.The Legacy Project demonstrates the power of intergenerational collaboration as a mechanism for broader social change. By valuing elders' stories and fostering meaningful relationships, we create pathways toward more compassionate approaches to aging while enriching both generations in the process. Ready to make your community more intergenerational? Visit LegacyProjectInc.org to learn how you can get involved or start a chapter in your area.Guest BioArielle Galinsky is the Co-Founder of The Legacy Project, a national nonprofit that connects college students and older adults in their communities for mutual storytelling, uplifting, and documenting life stories. Arielle is passionate about bridging generations and serves as a CoGen Impact Fellow with CoGenerate, where she leads efforts to expand the reach of the ‘Let's Make Next Gen CoGen' pledge—amplifying awareness of intergenerational engagement among young adults. Arielle, an MPP/JD candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School and Yale Law School, is committed to advancing aging policy reform at both the state and national levels—rooted in her belief that intergenerational advocacy is the key to moving the needle. Get in Touch with Ariellewww.linkedin.com/in/ariellegalinskyhttps://cogenerate.org/lets-make-next-gen-cogen/https://www.legacyprojectinc.org/ Like what you heard? Please like and share wherever you get your podcasts! Connect with Ann: Community Evaluation Solutions How Ann can help: · Support the evaluation capacity of your coalition or community-based organization. · Help you create a strategic plan that doesn't stress you and your group out, doesn't take all year to design, and is actionable. · Engage your group in equitable discussions about difficult conversations. · Facilitate a workshop to plan for action and get your group moving. · Create a workshop that energizes and excites your group for action. · Speak at your conference or event. Have a question or want to know more? Book a call with Ann .Be sure and check out our updated resource page! Let us know what was helpful. Music by Zach Price: Zachpricet@gmail.com

This episode was originally recorded on September 4th at the Abundance Conference in DC."Zach Liscow, my guest today, is a professor of law at Yale Law School. In 2022-2023, he was the Chief Economist at the Office of Management and Budget. He's also now my colleague at IFP, as a non-resident senior fellow.I have a bit of a problem today, which is that while Zach may not be a national household name, he might as well be in this audience. As most of you are aware, Zach has worked on many interesting economic topics, but especially on infrastructure costs: why it costs so much to build in the US, what the inputs are, and cross-cutting comparisons.The challenge for me today as an interviewer is that, in part because of Zach's work, everyone here now knows that infrastructure in the US costs a huge amount to build. I recently reviewed some submissions for a project on transit at IFP, and every other submission referenced the fact that the cost per mile to build a subway in New York is something like eight times more than the equivalent project in Paris.These stylized facts are now embedded in our discourse. And my problem is that this makes it a little hard to figure out how to have a conversation that isn't just all of us nodding in agreement. I'm going to try to tackle that problem, but I just want to lay my cards on the table. This is my fear, and we'll try to avoid it."The full transcript for this conversation and many others is at www.statecraft.pub. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

One line in Martin Buber's I and Thou stopped Jim Ferrell in his tracks. It made him realize that leadership isn't inside the individual — it lives in the space between us. That insight became his new book, You and We: A Relational Rethinking of Work, Life, and Leadership. In it, Jim argues that progress doesn't come from sameness, but from uniting across difference. In this episode, Jim and Dart discuss the four laws of relation, why relation is not the same as relationships, and how leaders can shift attention from individuals to the “between.”Jim Ferrell is a leadership consultant, founder of Withiii Leadership, and bestselling author of several leadership classics. He has spent nearly 30 years working with leaders and organizations around the world.In this episode, Dart and Jim discuss:- Relation vs. relationships- The four laws of relation- Why progress depends on difference- How individualistic leadership fails- What happens when we ignore the “between”- Levels of relation: division to compounding- Practices that move leaders toward integration- How relation reshapes how we see ourselves and others- And other topics…Jim Ferrell is the founder of Withiii Leadership and author of You and We: A Relational Rethinking of Work, Life, and Leadership. Prior to Withiii, he co-founded and led the Arbinger Institute, where he authored international bestsellers including Leadership and Self-Deception and The Anatomy of Peace. His work on leadership, culture change, and conflict resolution has shaped organizations from Apple, Google, and Nike to the White House and U.S. Treasury. A graduate of Yale Law School, Jim has also served as an adjunct professor on law and leadership at Brigham Young University. He is recognized as one of the most influential voices in relational leadership and organizational change.Resources Mentioned:You and We: A Relational Rethinking of Work, Life, and Leadership, by Jim Ferrell: https://www.amazon.com/You-We-Relational-Rethinking-Leadership/dp/1637747330I and Thou, by Martin Buber: https://www.amazon.com/I-Thou-Martin-Buber/dp/1578989973Withiii Leadership: https://www.withiii.com/Get discounted tickets to the Responsive Conference, featuring past Work for Humans guests Bree Groff and Simone Stolzoff – September 17–18, Oakland, CA. Use code “11fold”: https://www.responsiveconference.com/ticketsRegister to attend the UWEBC Conference, where Dart keynotes the HR track alongside Ethan Mollick and Nancy Giordano – September 30, University of Wisconsin: https://uwebc.wisc.edu/conference/registration/Connect with Jim:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jameslferrell/Work with Dart:Dart is the CEO and co-founder of the work design firm 11fold. Build work that makes employees feel alive, connected to their work, and focused on what's most important to the business. Book a call at 11fold.com.

How should we punish criminals? In Impermissible Punishments, the Arthur Liman Professor of Law at Yale Law School, Judith Resnik, provides a historical narrative of punishment in European and American prisons. Tracing the evolution from Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian Panopticon through post-World War II human rights frameworks, Resnik argues that punishment systems developed as a transatlantic rather than uniquely American project. Her analysis reveals how prisoners themselves, not reformers, first articulated the concept of retained rights during detention. Resnik's new book chronicles a crucial divergence after the 1980s, when European systems maintained stronger human rights commitments while American prisons retreated from recognizing prisoners as rights-bearing individuals, thereby making prison a problem for its democracy. 1. Prison systems developed as a transatlantic project, not American innovation Punishment theories and practices emerged from shared Enlightenment thinking across Europe and America in the 1700s-1800s. Figures like Beccaria, Bentham, and Tocqueville created interconnected ideas about rational, purposeful punishment that crossed national boundaries.2. Prisoners, not reformers, first articulated the concept of retained rights While reformers debated how to punish effectively, it was people in detention themselves—like Winston Talley in Arkansas in 1965—who first argued they retained fundamental rights during incarceration. This represented a revolutionary shift from viewing prisoners as "civilly dead."3. World War II created the crucial turning point for prisoners' rights The horrors of concentration camps and fascist regimes made clear the dangers of treating any group as less than human. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 1955 UN prison rules marked the formal recognition of prisoners as rights-bearing individuals.4. America and Europe diverged after the 1980s on prisoner treatment While both regions initially embraced prisoners' rights in the 1960s-70s, the U.S. retreated during the "war on crime" era. Europe maintained stronger human rights commitments, while America expanded punitive measures like solitary confinement and mass incarceration.5. Prison conditions reflect broader democratic health Resnik argues that how a society treats its most marginalized members—prisoners, immigrants, minorities—indicates the strength of its democratic institutions. Authoritarian treatment of any group threatens the rights of all citizens in a democratic system.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this joint episode between Pekingology and the ChinaPower Podcast, CSIS Freeman Chair Senior Fellow Henrietta Levin and co-host CSIS China Power Project Deputy Director and Fellow Brian Hart are joined by Dan Wang to discuss his new book, Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future. The conversation unpacks China's monumentalism in its grand engineering projects, the advantages and consequences of building at such scale, China's push to lead in key technologies, Beijing's social engineering efforts, and much more. Dan Wang is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab. Previously, he was a fellow at the Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center and a lecturer at Yale University's MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies. From 2017 to 2023, he worked in China as the technology analyst at Gavekal Dragonomics, based in Hong Kong, Beijing, and then Shanghai. For more from Dan Wang, please read his latest piece in Foreign Affairs titled The Real China Model: Beijing's Enduring Formula for Wealth and Power.

In this joint episode of Pekingology and the ChinaPower Podcast, CSIS Freeman Chair Senior Fellow Henrietta Levin and co-host CSIS China Power Project Deputy Director and Fellow Brian Hart are joined by Dan Wang to discuss his new book, Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future. The conversation unpacks China's monumentalism in its grand engineering projects, the advantages and consequences of building at such scale, China's push to lead in key technologies, Beijing's social engineering efforts, and much more. Dan Wang is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab. Previously, he was a fellow at the Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center and a lecturer at Yale University's MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies. From 2017 to 2023, he worked in China as the technology analyst at Gavekal Dragonomics, based in Hong Kong, Beijing, and then Shanghai. For more from Dan Wang, please read his latest piece in Foreign Affairs - The Real China Model: Beijing's Enduring Formula for Wealth and Power.

In this episode, we talk to Etelle Higonnet. She is the Founder & Director of Coffee Watch. A graduate of Yale Law School, she's an attorney and environmental and human rights activist. She previously worked at Mighty Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, as well as two war crimes courts. She was knighted as a Chevalier de l'ordre national du Mérite in her home country of France for her pioneering efforts to curb deforestation in high-risk commodities with an emphasis on cocoa, rubber, palm oil, cattle, and soy industries. She has worked in over 30 countries, is widely published, speaks 9 languages, and is now dedicated to trying to end deforestation and slavery in the global coffee industryTimestamps to relevant points within the episode, use this format:[00:00] -Introduction to Etelle Higonnet[02:52] -The Birth of Coffee Watch[04:22] -The Dark Side of Coffee Production[08:27] -Child Labor in Coffee Farming[15:04] -Breaking the Cycle of Poverty[18:52] -The Role of Law in Corporate Accountability[23:56] -Greenwashing and Consumer Power[34:37] -Impact of Coffee Watch and Future Goals[47:18] - Final Thoughts and Call to ActionLinks from the episodes:How Your Coffee Can Make A Difference with RAW CoffeeWhere can people find our guest?Coffee WatchEtelle HigonnetKey Takeaways:Etelle's journey into human rights began in Guatemala as a teenager.Coffee Watch aims to combat human rights and environmental abuses in the coffee industry.Most coffee consumed globally is linked to child labor and deforestation.Parents of child laborers want their children in school but face economic obstacles.Living income for farmers can eliminate child labor and poverty in coffee production.Certifications often do not guarantee a living wage for farmers.Consumer demand can drive companies to adopt better practices.Greenwashing is prevalent in the coffee industry, making it hard to identify ethical products.Law enforcement is crucial for addressing illegal practices in the coffee industry.The future of coffee production can be sustainable with consumer awareness and action.

Dan Wang is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover History Lab, and previously a fellow at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center. Before that, he was an analyst focused on China's technology capabilities at Gavekal Dragonomics, based across Hong Kong, Beijing, and Shanghai. Dan is perhaps best known for a series of annual letters, published between 2017-2023, which encapsulate his reflections on Chinese society; his writing has also appeared in other outlets including Foreign Affairs, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and beyond. In this New Books Network Episode, Dan discusses his debut book Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future (Norton, 2025). Styled as an aggregation of seven of his famed annual letters, Breakneck presents a dichotomy of China and the US as an “engineering state” and "lawyerly society” respectively, and traces how China's “engineering state” has shaped Chinese society over the last decade.  Breakneck is now available for purchase online and in physical bookstores. Show notes: Dan's website Dan's annual letters: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017 Dan's blogpost about Breakneck, which we reference several times in the episode China-related English books that Dan mentions: The Halls of Uselessness (Simon Leys), Other Rivers (Peter Hessler), Invitation to a Banquet (Fuchsia Dunlop) Chinese-language movies from 2017+ that Anthony recommends for illustrating a diverse spectrum of sociopolitical noteworthiness: Wolf Warrior 2 (for China's nationalistic/geopolitical narrative), Upstream (for China's tech industry/labor market), Detention (for Taiwanese popular memory on authoritarianism); plus two additional movies not mentioned in the episode — Ne Zha 2 (for China's soft power potential) and Limbo (for a dark taste of Hong Kong's contemporary malaise).  Chinese-language movies that Dan recommendations: Caught by the Tides (Jia Zhangke), One Second (Zhang Yimou) Anthony Kao is a writer who intersects international affairs and cultural criticism. He founded/edits Cinema Escapist—a publication exploring the sociopolitical context behind global film and television—and also writes for outlets like The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Diplomat, and Eater. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

While everyone starts their morning a little differently, one thing many people have in common is pouring a cup of coffee. But what if I told you that your daily ritual of coffee is more than likely funding mass deforestation, biodiversity loss, and slavery? One thing you know is that on this podcast, we vote with our dollar, and what we buy every single day, where we buy it, and who we buy it from, all make a difference in the impact we have not only on the environment, but on workers across the globe. That's why in episode 194 of the Outdoor Minimalist podcast, I sit down to chat with Etelle Higonnet.Etelle is the Founder & Director of Coffee Watch. A graduate of Yale Law School, she's an attorney and environmental and human rights activist. She previously worked at Mighty Earth, National Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, as well as two war crimes courts. She was knighted in her home country of France for her pioneering efforts to curb deforestation in high-risk commodities with an emphasis on cocoa, rubber, palm oil, cattle, and soy industries. She has worked in over 30 countries, is widely published, speaks 9 languages, and is now dedicated to ending deforestation and slavery in the global coffee industry.Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/outdoor.minimalist.book/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.theoutdoorminimalist.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@theoutdoorminimalist⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee: ⁠https://buymeacoffee.com/outdoorminimalist⁠Listener Survey: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://forms.gle/jd8UCN2LL3AQst976⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠-----------------Coffee WatchWebsite: https://coffeewatch.org/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/coffeewatch/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/coffeewatchorg/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/coffeewatchorgYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CoffeeWatchOrg

【聊了什么】 在特朗普2.0时代，高院6比3的保守派多数已成定局。面对特朗普政府在行政权上的不断扩张和对司法独立底线的不断试探，高院是如何回应的？最高法院是美国民主的最后一道防线，还是行政权力的橡皮图章？ 本期节目中，我们与两位嘉宾复盘最高法院近期的关键判决，剖析其对美国政治与社会的深远影响。 播客文字稿（付费会员专享）：https://theamericanroulette.com/scotus-rulings-2025-transcript 【支持我们】 如果喜欢这期节目并希望支持我们将节目继续做下去： 也欢迎加入我们的会员计划： https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ 会员可以收到每周2-5封newsletter，可以加入会员社群，参加会员活动，并享受更多福利。 合作投稿邮箱：american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【时间轴】 03:05 高院年度盘点背景介绍：特朗普第二任期与6比3的保守派多数 05:26 批判“3-3-3”法院的说法 11:10 首席大法官罗伯茨的个人议程与困境 15:05 宪法、政策与司法审查：法院角色的理论探讨 21:27 Trump v. CASA 与出生公民权 41:01 “影子卷宗”(Shadow Docket)的兴起及其影响 46:41 影子卷宗案例：移民与行政权力案件 53:01 从高院判决看总统制与议会制的差异 64:43 LGBTQ权益与父母权利的冲突 72:48 阿里托的愤怒与杰克逊的“末日预言” 83:24 高院的未来：合法性危机与下任期展望 95:34 重新审视法院角色 【我们是谁】 美轮美换是一档深入探讨当今美国政治的中文播客。 我们的主播和嘉宾： Lokin：美国法学院毕业生，即将成为一名纽约诉讼律师 王浩岚：美国政治爱好者，岚目公众号主笔兼消息二道贩子 Nancy：普林斯顿大学政治学博士生，耶鲁法学院法律博士 品达：美国政治观察人士 【 What We Talked About】 In the era of Trump 2.0, a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court is a settled reality. How has the Court responded to the Trump administration's continuous expansion of executive power and its constant testing of the boundaries of judicial independence? Is the Supreme Court the last line of defense for American democracy, or a mere rubber stamp for executive authority? In this episode, we are joined by two guests to review the Supreme Court's recent key decisions and analyze their profound impact on American politics and society. Podcast Transcript (Paid Subscribers Only): https://theamericanroulette.com/scotus-rulings-2025-transcript 【Support Us】 If you like our show and want to support us, please consider the following: Join our membership program: https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/americanroulette Business Inquiries and fan mail: american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【Timeline】 03:05 Background for the Supreme Court's Year in Review: Trump's Second Term and the 6-3 Conservative Majority 05:26 Critiquing the "3-3-3" Court Theory 11:10 Chief Justice Roberts's Personal Agenda and Dilemmas 15:05 Constitution, Policy, and Judicial Review: A Theoretical Exploration of the Court's Role 21:27 Trump v. CASA and Birthright Citizenship 41:01 The Rise of the "Shadow Docket" and Its Impact 46:41 Shadow Docket Cases: Immigration and Executive Power 53:01 Presidential vs. Parliamentary Systems as Seen Through Supreme Court Rulings 64:43 The Conflict Between LGBTQ Rights and Parental Rights 72:48 Justice Alito's Anger and Justice Jackson's "Doomsday Prophecy" 83:24 The Future of the Supreme Court: Legitimacy Crisis and a Look Ahead to the Next Term 95:34 Reexamining the Role of the Court 【Who We Are】 The American Roulette is a podcast dedicated to helping the Chinese-speaking community understand fast-changing U.S. politics. Our Hosts and Guests: Lokin: U.S. law school student, incoming NY litigation lawyer 王浩岚 (Haolan Wang): American political enthusiast, chief writer at Lán Mù WeChat Official Account, and peddler of information Nancy：Princeton Politics PhD student, Yale Law School graduate Pinda：American political enthusiast 【The Links】 Trump v. CASA, Inc. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_2co3.pdf Mahmoud v. Taylor https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf A. A. R. P. v. Trump https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf Skrmetti v. United States https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf Trump v. Wilcox https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a966_1b8e.pdf KBJ's footnote 12 in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida https://abovethelaw.com/2025/06/neil-gorsuch-starts-some-supreme-court-drama-ketanji-brown-jackson-ends-it/ How the Transgender Rights Movement Bet on the Supreme Court and Lost https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/magazine/scotus-transgender-care-tennessee-skrmetti.html Sarah McBride on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-sarah-mcbride.html Lawless https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Lawless/Leah-Litman/9781668054628

Artificial intelligence has been a frequent topic on Sinica in recent years — but usually through the lens of the two countries that have produced the leading models and companies: the United States and China. We've covered generative AI, national strategies, governance frameworks, and the geopolitical implications of AI leadership.This webinar, broadcast on the morning of August 14, broadens that lens to explore how other countries — and especially Ukraine — are approaching AI in the public sector. Around the world, governments are experimenting with AI well beyond chatbots and text generation: China's “City Brain” optimizes traffic, energy use, and public safety; U.S. agencies are streamlining services and automating benefits processing; and elsewhere, smart grids, predictive infrastructure planning, and AI-enabled e-governance are reshaping public administration. These projects reveal both the promise and the complexity of bringing AI into government — along with valid concerns over privacy, fairness, and inclusiveness.We'll look at what lessons Ukraine might draw from U.S. and Chinese experiences, the opportunities and challenges of adapting these practices, and the strategic risks of sourcing AI solutions from different providers — especially in the context of Ukraine's eventual postwar reconstruction.Joining us are three distinguished guests:Dmytro Yefremov, Board Member of the Ukrainian Association of Sinologists, with deep expertise in China's political and technological strategies and Ukraine's policy landscape.Wang Guan, Chairman of Learnable.ai in China, bringing extensive experience in AI applications for public administration and education.Karman Lucero, Associate Research Scholar and Senior Fellow at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center, whose work focuses on Chinese law, governance, and the regulation of emerging technologies.Thanks to the Ukrainian Platform for Contemporary China, the Ukrainian Association of Sinologists, and the Center for Slavic, Eurasian, and East European Studies at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill for organizing and sponsoring today's event. Special thanks to Vita Golod for putting together the panel and inviting me to moderate.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Sarah Isgur and David French are joined by Miriam Ingber, associate dean of admissions & financial aid at Yale Law School, and Kristi Jobson, dean of admissions at Harvard Law School, to discuss what they're looking for in applicants. The Agenda:—Who even reviews applications these days?—The influx of applications—AI applications—Up in arms about the LSAT—The role of accommodations—Financial aid decisions Show Notes:—Ingber and Jobson's podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Fr. Dominic Legge, O.P., is the President of the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception (PFIC) at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C. He is an Ordinary Member of the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, and holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, a Ph.L. from the School of Philosophy of The Catholic University of America, and a doctorate in Sacred Theology from the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. He entered the Order of Preachers in 2001, after having practiced constitutional law for several years as a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice. He has also taught at The Catholic University of America Law School and at Providence College. He is the author of The Trinitarian Christology of St. Thomas Aquinas (Oxford University Press, 2017).