Podcasts about YLS

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

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

Sharps sits down with Dante, Gregg Styles and Shady Mike to chat about their come up, spiritual journey, doing time, give their take on Kendrick x Drake, YLS trial, and more. ----- Promote Your Music with No Jumper - https://nojumper.com/pages/promo CHECK OUT OUR ONLINE STORE!!! https://nojumper.com NO JUMPER PATREON   / nojumper   CHECK OUT OUR NEW SPOTIFY PLAYLIST https://open.spotify.com/playlist/5te... Follow us on SNAPCHAT   / 4874336901   Follow us on SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/4z4yCTj... iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/n... Follow us on Social Media:   / 4874336901     / nojumper     / nojumper     / nojumper     / nojumper   JOIN THE DISCORD:   / discord   Follow Adam22:   / adam22     / adam22     / adam22   adam22bro on Snapchat Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a Bad State: Responding to State and Local Budget Crises (David Schleicher) David Schleicher is the Walter E. Meyer Professor of Property and Urban Law at Yale Law School. He is the author of In a Bad State: Responding to State and Local Budget Crises. He also co-hosts the podcast Digging a Hole with YLS colleague Samuel Moyn. Appendices: David Schleicher: New York Times article The Queen Bee of Bidenomics and American Compass proposal On Infrastructure Financing. Greg Shill: Fire & Steam: How the Railways Transformed Britain by Christian Wolmar. Jeff Lin: Interstate: Highway Politics and Policy Since 1939 by Mark Rose and Raymond Mohl. Follow us on the web or on “X,” formerly known as Twitter: @denselyspeaking, @jeffrlin, @greg_shill, and @ ProfSchleich. Producer: Nathan Spindler-Krage The views expressed on the show are those of the participants, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the Federal Reserve System, or any of the other institutions with which the hosts or guests are affiliated.

In this episode, we join Martin Butler M1MRB, Chris Howard (M0TCH), Bill Barnes (WC3B) and Leslie Butterfields (G0CIB) to discuss the latest Amateur / Ham Radio news. Colin Butler (M6BOY) rounds up the news in brief and the episode's feature is Beginners Fault Finding. We would like to thank Philip Heckingham (VK6ADF) and our monthly and annual subscription donors for keeping the podcast advert free. To donate, please visit - http://www.icqpodcast.com/donate ARRL Teachers Institute Kicks Off Summer Cohorts PRESENTER OPINION - Do Hams Still Listen to Shortwave? They do in Canada! YLS Ascend Summits To Be "Queens Of The Mountains" US Military To Improve Tracking Of Hobbyists' Balloons Would AM Mandate Force Carmakers to Scrap Safety Features? Meme Appreciation Month is on the Air GR2HQ Challenge

In this unmissable podcast episode, we're joined by Anastasia Boyko, Director of Non-JD Programs at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, who shares her remarkable journey from Soviet-era Ukraine to a pivotal role in legal education. Anastasia looks back on her law school days, sheds light on the establishment of the YLS leadership program, and describes her crucial involvement in shaping unconventional legal pathways today. The episode concludes with a rich discourse on leadership, innovation, and the pursuit of 'unicorn talent' within the legal realm. Whether you are navigating the waters of education, legal practice, or leadership, this episode offers a treasure trove of practical advice and motivational insights. For our Moves of the Week segment, Cleary Gottlieb continues its expansion in the Bay Area with the significant addition of Angela Dunning, while Goodwin reinforces its California life sciences team with partner David Chen. Be sure to rate, review, subscribe, and most importantly, tell a friend!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking on the button below. Thanks!As a new academic year gets underway, many of us are wondering: what law-school scandals lie in store? To discuss current hot-button issues facing legal academia, including free speech, intellectual diversity, and affirmative action, I could think of no better podcast guest than Professor Amy Chua. As a longtime member of the Yale Law School faculty, she's had a front-row seat to—and personal involvement in—several of YLS's recent controversies.  Yale Law insanity aside, there was another reason I wanted to interview Amy, the author of two New York Times bestsellers—most notably, her 2011 memoir, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother (2011). This month, Minotaur Books, Macmillan's mystery- and thriller-focused imprint, is publishing her first novel, The Golden Gate. I devoured it in two days, and I can attest that it's a great read—a historically rich page-turner that will teach you about California history while keeping you on the edge of your seat.One other thing: loyal listeners might notice this episode is going up on Thursday rather than its usual day of Wednesday. There's a good reason for that: my sound engineer Tommy Harron and his wife just welcomed their second child to the world. Congratulations to them on this great news.Show Notes:* Amy Chua bio, Yale Law School* The Golden Gate, Amazon* All About Amy (Chua), The Law Professor We Can't Stop Talking About, by David Lat for Original JurisdictionPrefer 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.

In this interview, we have the privilege of talking with Anne KC9YL, an exceptional amateur radio operator whose dedication to empowering women in the hobby and mastery of Morse code have set her apart. With a strong focus on supporting YLs (women) in the field, KC9YL has become a prominent figure in the ham radio community. Her proficiency in Morse code and experience in operating various radio equipment have earned her recognition and respect. Beyond her technical prowess, Anne KC9YL is a passionate mentor, guiding and inspiring aspiring operators, particularly women, to explore the thrilling world of amateur radio. Join us as we delve into KC9YL's fascinating journey, where she shares important insights, interesting experiences, and her vision for YLs in the ham radio community. Join us as we talk about how YOU can get involved in portable radio in this episode of the All Portable Discussion Zone “AP/DZ”. Every aspect of Portable Ops is explored in this biweekly live stream as we discuss news, gear, achievements, the workbench, contests, awards and more - find all Portable Ops related topics here. Join this channel and become a Premium Member for early access, behind-the scenes-content, and exclusive chats https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHriEQX4EK2b0QS7EgSvjmg/join Twitter: Charlie NJ7V @NJ7V_ Dan KC7MSU @KC7MSU Brian W7JET @BBW7JET Help support this channel - buy us a Coke: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/RedSummitRF Red Summit RF Amazon Storefront: https://www.amazon.com/shop/redsummitrf #APDZ #POTA #PortableOps #HamRadio #SOTA --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/nj7v/support

Being a trustee is something that requires knowledge, effort and liability, so when you're creating your estate plan, it's important to consider your options and who will make the best choices for you. Cindy Bozik, national managing director of trust services, joins this episode of Your Life Simplified to share her advice for picking the right trustee for you.

What is a money market? What is the difference between a money market and a money market fund? They are at their highest demand since 2008, but there's still confusion. On this episode of Your Life Simplified, Valerie Escobar, senior wealth advisor, and Michael MacKelvie, wealth advisor, compare the different types and what investors should know, including the risks.

Professor Doug NeJaime discusses the landscape of parentage laws across the country, his work with YLS students to pass the Connecticut Parentage Act, and what it takes to pass laws that better reflect what makes a family.

When looking at insurance, you're likely faced with two options—term or permanent insurance. Which one makes more sense for you and your situation? This week, Jerry Clark, senior consultant, insurance solutions, joins Michael MacKelvie, wealth advisor, to help break down term versus permanent insurance and how to figure out which may be right for you.

Laura from YLS gives her thoughts on remakes being done, including Moana, Lilo and Stitch, and Harry Potter. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/yourlittlesisters/support

50% of adults will need long-term care at some point in their life, and this can have major impacts on your emotions and financial plan. Dr. Christina Lynn, practice management consultant, joins this episode of Your Life Simplified to share how to discuss aging and long-term care with your parents, what emotions this may bring, how much to plan for financially, the different types of care and each of their costs.

Before saying, “I do,” it can be helpful to discuss finances with your fiancé and have a prenuptial agreement in place. On this episode, Valerie Escobar, senior wealth advisor, hosts, Julia Rodgers, CEO and Co-Founder of HelloPrenup, who shares ways you can approach this topic with your partner, how to have that conversation and ways that you can help protect both people with a prenup.

Oftentimes, getting a prenuptial agreement may feel unromantic, timely and expensive. But not having a prenup can end up causing more strife and costing more in the long run. On this episode of Your Life Simplified, Valerie Escobar, senior wealth advisor, and hosts guest, Julia Rodgers, CEO and Co-Founder of HelloPrenup. They discuss what is a prenup, what should go in it, the process, making sure it is equitable for both parties and postnuptial agreements.

With the passage of the SECURE Act & SECURE 2.0 Act, Stretch IRAs are no longer an option. So, how should investors with an IRA manage this and what should beneficiaries do with their inherited IRA? Valerie Escobar, senior wealth advisor, and Michael MacKelvie, wealth advisor, share strategies investors may consider with their IRAs.

In celebration of Your Life Simplified's 100th episode, Valerie Escobar, senior wealth advisor, and Michael MacKelvie, wealth advisor, look back at the last 100 years in finance and the markets. While history doesn't provide a perfect roadmap for the future, it can teach us useful lessons about bear markets, industry trends, risk and the economy.

A Roth IRA is an important component of your retirement portfolio. In this episode of Your Life Simplified, Valerie Escobar, senior wealth advisor, and Michael MacKelvie, wealth advisor, discuss mistakes that can be made when investing in a Roth IRA and how to avoid them. Topics discussed include spousal contributions, Roth 401k options, the 5-year rule and contribution eligibility.

On this episode of Your Life Simplified, Valerie Escobar, senior wealth advisor, is joined by special guest, Brett Kunshek, head of options. They break down what an option is and dive into risk mitigation, generating income and return enhancement. They'll also cover areas of frustration for investors and examples.

To kick off the new year, Valerie Escobar, senior wealth advisor, and Michael MacKelvie, wealth advisor, share financial goals and new year's resolutions you may want to set in 2023. From retirement planning to estate planning and gifting, we cover ways to help you achieve your goals.

With only a few weeks left in the year, make sure you check everything off your financial list. On this episode, Valerie Escobar, senior wealth advisor, and Michael MacKelvie, wealth advisor provide an end of year wealth planning checklist, which includes areas like retirement planning, Required Minimum Distributions and gifting.

Miriam and Kristi just couldn't stop talking, so in the second half of this series finale, they continue to discuss their time so far as deans of admissions at HLS and YLS.

In this week's episode of Your Life Simplified, Valerie Escobar, senior wealth advisor, and Christina Lynn, practice management consultant, continue their conversation about financial conflicts between spouses. Topics discussed include tips for managing spousal differences as an advisor, suggestions for spouses when talking about financial conflict and examples of financial conflict.

Amarica's Constitution is invited to Yale Law School by the YLS chapter of the Federalist Society for a live podcast, and Yale cooperates by choosing this day to withdraw from the US News rankings of Law Schools.  Naturally, we take that on, and it is the law students themselves that serve as our guests for a lively discussion.  Beyond this issue, however, we take a look inside this iconic Law School, and we see what it's like for the FedSoc members - perhaps outside of YLS' ideological mainstream, but as you will hear, an impressive and thoughtful lot.  Many of you will emerge from this listen with a sense that a valuable discourse can be had with them - and we can all agree that our nation needs more of that.  Or so one would think - but does Yale Law School concur?

In this week's episode of Your Life Simplified, Valerie Escobar, senior wealth advisor, and Christina Lynn, practice management consultant, dive into the topic of financial challenges between spouses including divorce, overspending and how wealth advisors and clients can communicate during this difficult time.

O nosso DJ LB numa sessão de discos de puro DUBSTEP!! Babe Roots - Brown Walls, Pt 1 and Pt 2 [Visceral Vibrations] Killawatt - Warehouse Dub [Lion Charge] Quest - Visitors [Deep Medi] Cessman - Jah Sunshine [Dubliminal] Silkie - Hooby [Deep Medi] Killawatt - Killa Inna Jungle [Ruff Cut] Boofy - Your Shed's Too Big [System] Cuttle - Black Jah VIP [Grand Ancestor] Kahn - Dread [Deep Medi] Mala - Eyez VIP [DMZ] VIVEK - Sirens [Deep Medi] OBF - Echo Dub (Gorgon Sound Version) [Peng Sound] Dubkasm - Concrete and Steal (Gorgon Sound Remix) [Peng Sound] DJ Madd - Clash Dub [Lion Charge] Killawatt - Single Entity [Lion Charge] Killawatt & Ipman - Jigsaw Dub [Lion Charge] Zero - Amazon [AmenLX] Zero, YLS, Xtanki - Lined Up [AmenLX] Programa emitido a 19 Nov 2022 na Rádio Oxigénio (102.6 FM).

In this week's episode of Your Life Simplified, Mike MacKelvie wealth advisor, and special guest Kevin Ahern, Human Resources Manager, discuss Health Savings Accounts and the 5 benefits of having one.   0:00: Intro 01:30 Benefit #1 – Triple Tax Saving 02:04 Benefit #2 – Portability 03:53 Benefit #3 – Medicare Premiums 05:35 Benefit #4 – Investment Control 06:17 Benefit #5 – Tax-free Withdrawals after the age of 65 12:29 Outro & Disclosures     

In this week's episode of Your Life Simplified, Mike MacKelvie wealth advisor, and special guest Kevin Ahern, Human Resources Manager, discuss how to get the most out of your open enrollment.

Inflation is unavoidable right now. You see it every where you look and on the news, but what can we do to combat this inflation? Is there anything you can be doing differently in your portfolio?  In this week's podcast episode, Valerie Escobar, senior wealth advisor, and Mike MacKelvie, wealth advisor, talk through several different variables affecting inflation.  

An estate plan can play an important part in your overall wealth plan and can make a large impact on your spouse and children. Taking a few steps can help ensure that your estate doesn't end up in probate and your family isn't left with a headache. On today's episode, Mike MacKelvie is joined by special guest Drew McDowell, attorney and senior wealth advisor at Mariner Wealth Advisors, as they talk through 5 costly estate planning errors that celebrities like Prince, Whitney Houston and James Gandolfini made in their own estate plan and learn what you can do to help make sure you're not making these same mistakes.

When keeping up with the, sometimes sensational, media coverage of the markets, things can seem bleak without proper context. In this week's episode, Valerie Escobar and Mike MacKelvie talk us through how to assess the information we glean from these news story headlines, and how it might impact our investing plans.

THE THESIS: The Party cannot function if people are able to reason from positions of actual authority--the Word of God--and what it creates: observable, falsifiable scientific fact; mathematical certantites; absolute moral clarity. That's why The Party is pushing “Appeal to Authority” down on people. We, though, have spiritual immunity to that tactic and must pass it on to people.  THE SCRIPTURE & SCRIPTURAL RESOURCES:  Matthew 5:1-12 5 Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them. He said: 3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,     for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn,     for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek,     for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,     for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful,     for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart,     for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers,     for they will be called children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,     for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. THE NEWS & COMMENT: BLOCK 1 In what may be the purest distillation of Yale Law School of all time, YLS students declare, in chalk: “WE ARE THE LAW.” [AUDIO] - “We didn't understand that it's a fairly low fatality rate and that it's a disease mainly in the elderly, kind of like flu is, although a bit different than that.” - Bill Gates [AUDIO] - Bill Gates admits that shutting down schools was a bad call; it didn't stop case growth and the education deficit will take years to recover from. Lockdown skeptics were right again and punished for it. [AUDIO] - mRNA Vaccines Lead to Spike Protein Entering Nucleus, Rise in Vascular Events, 40 Percent Increase in ‘All Cause Deaths': Dr. Urso Union College Student Booted for Rejecting Vaccine Booster After Having Serious Side Effects  [AUDIO] - The average ballot trafficker made 38 TRIPS to drop boxes. And it's on tape! “Governor Kemp…covered it up for 7 months,” says #TrueTheVote founder Catherine Engelbrecht. #Georgia officials last week issued subpoenas to obtain the identities of individuals and NGOs who may have engaged in #BallotTrafficking. Florida Voter Integrity Law Reinstated By Appeals Court In Big Win For DeSantis; So no funny business is permitted in Florida elections under the law restricting ballot harvesting, dropboxes, and private money to run elections. Democrats are out of Zuck. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christian talks to Petra and Eliška, two primary school teachers of English in the Czech Republic.  Their classroom-based inquiry projects centre around the topics of differentiation and motivation in the classroom, and their findings reveal how relatively small changes can have a very profound impact.

After a long unplanned hiatus, the YLS podcast is back with a fantastic discussion! Today I chat with Joe De Sousa, a 22 year old college student from Ontario. He details his anxiety, depression, and ADHD and speaks about society's projection of men/toxic masculinity. Topics Covered

Nicola Meldrum is from Edinburgh and has been involved in ELT since 1999. She worked for over 10 years teaching business and general English to adults, teens and YLs. She completed her Trinity Dip TESOL in 2003 and then started training teachers on a Certificate in TESOL course. She is now course director on OxfordTEFL's Trinity Dip TESOL course, writes teacher and student materials and is an online tutor on teacher development courses, including a course on teaching pronunciation at Oxford Tefl. Check out her interview: https://youtu.be/uw0C87YBrPU Check out Nicola's Pronunciation blog @ https://teachpronunciation.blog/about/ #TEFL #TESOL #ELT

Subscribe now Give a gift subscription Share Recently Yale Law School (YLS) student Trent Colbert wrote Why I Didn't Apologize For That Yale Law School Email: We must end the culture of performative repentance for Persuasion. I was broadly familiar with the culture-war saga that Colbert was caught up in, having read a piece a few weeks ago in The Washington Post describing how a seemingly innocent and jocular email triggered accusations of racism at YLS (as well as Aaron Sibarium's piece in The Washington Free Beacon). Colbert's in Persuasion made me curious about him, and I reached out to talk about what he had seen, and the lessons that we as a society and individuals might take from it. First, Colbert gives us his own perspective of what transpired at YLS to make him a “trending topic” on social media. Perhaps to the surprise of Millennials, the 23-year-old Zoomer seemed not entirely familiar with the well-known podcast Chapo Trap House. As a member of Gen X, I have to admit it's a little unnerving to hear Millennials viewed as geriatric elders. But Colbert grew up in a world of super-charged cultural change and perhaps perceives the passage of time differently than those of us who came into adulthood before smartphones. He contended that some of the offense others perceived might be a matter of cohort differences and even just his casual Zoomer manner. Even a few years' difference today might mean an entirely alternative landscape of memes and sensibilities, so a subtle and wry reference among his age-mates could strike an individual only a few years older as offensive, opaque and “tone-deaf.” With that in mind, I was curious about his background, and where he got the strength to stand up to the YLS administrative bureaucracy. We explored his relationship to his Cherokee background, as well as growing up in a moderately conservative household where religion was important. Colbert takes the idea of right and wrong seriously, and he felt that his own conscience would not allow him to agree to an apology that was premised on lies. Importantly, he also had a supportive group of friends at YLS and a wider circle of backers in the community. Eventually, we moved to broader social forces, and how his individual choices and decisions might impact others. By doing the right thing, rather than the easy thing, Colbert hopes to show that it is possible to defeat the kind of bureaucratic machine that was unleashed upon him and trigger a preference cascade that changes the culture on campus. And doing the right thing has not been entirely easy, as Colbert admits to being uncomfortable with realizing how others at YLS viewed him purely through a racial lens, as well as the fact that many prominent organizations accused him of being a racist. Overall, perhaps the take-home lesson is that it doesn't take an exceptional person to take on the system. Just someone who has a core set of principles and friends and family who support them when they might have to make decisions that lead to socially unpopular outcomes. Subscribe now Give a gift subscription Share

Finalmente... YLS ao comando dos decks no Pressão Sonora!! 01. Alx, Masia, Magugu - Rudeboy (Dead End RMX) [Skalator] 02. Lost - Hexagon [DD&D] 03. YLS - No Feedback [Eyesome] 04. Lordel & Halogenix - Relic [1985] 05. Saule - Cure Dem (J:Kenzo RMX) [Infernal Sounds] 06. Biome - Scripts [Self-Released] 07. With Bear - The Creator [Macabre Unit] 08. YLS ft Xtanki - Nothing [Eyesome] 09. Biome - The Scent [Free Download] 10. Subreachers - Mystical [Free Download] 11. Density - Lethargia [Cyberfunk] 12. Biome - Yardie [Self-Released] 13. Ternion Sound - Far North Dub [Artikal] 14. Biome - Formations [Self-Released] 15. RDG & DubApe - Brok Out [Boka Recs] 16. Epoch - Rib Cage, Pt II [Innamind] 17. Drone & Hyroglifics - Faded [System Music] 18. Kercha - Jazz Symptoms [DNO] 19. RDG & DubApe - Drift [Boka Recs] 20. Hypho & Xakra - Bufo Alvarius [Encrypted] 21. YLS ft Incendiario - Leaves [Eyesome] 22. Drone - Blood Orange [1985] 23. Monty ft T-Man - Apollo (Mystic State RMX) [Artikal] 24. B-Say - Hush [Badman Studios] 25. Perverse - Hamba [Aquatic Lab] 26. Monuman - Inflict [Vision] 27. Cesco - Bomba [1985] 28. Arkham Sound - Fist Of God [Duploc] 29. Xakra - Penny Drops [Duploc] Programa emitido a 24 Jul 2021 na Rádio Oxigénio (102.6 FM).

Na celebração dos 10 anos do colectivo Mais Baixo, apresentamos mais um dj set de 404 Not Found & YLS, gravado ao vivo em 29-03-2019 numa festa da Kalimodjo! 01. DJ Madd - Badboy Selection [Roots & Future] 02. The Untouchables - Clairvoyance [Samurai] 03. HLZ & MC Fats - Mystery Sound [Dispatch] 04. ?? 05. ?? 06. Hydro - Sagarmatha [Utopia Music] 07. Skeptical - Freudian Slip [Exit] 08. DRS ft Enei - Count to Ten (VIP) [Soul:R] 09. Crypticz & Dexta - Together [Diffrent Music] 10. ?? 11. ?? 12. ?? 13. Debs - Wednesday [Dispatch] 14. ?? 15. ?? 16. ?? 17. Mean Teeth - Fear is In You [Lifestyle] 18. ?? 19. ?? 20. Clarity ft Skeptical - Segment [Samurai] 21. Xtrah - The Base [RAM] 22. ?? 23. ?? 24. Mako - Daggy [Dispatch] 25. ?? 26. ?? 27. Done - Stingray [Lifestyle] 28. Double 99 - Stingray [Lifestyle] 29. Homemade Weapons - Styrofoam [Samurai] 30. Alix Perez & Fracture - Archetype [1985] 31. High Hertz - Jungle Rocker [Nuusic] 32. Bukez Finezt - Under Control (Submarine Remix) [Subway] 33. Jubei ft Flowdan - Say Nothin' [Metalheadz] Programa emitido a 17 Jul 2021 na Rádio Oxigénio (102.6 FM).

NewsWest for Sunday 11th April 2021 is the Contesting edition, and we’re full of it this week. Full of Contesting information that is, including fantastic Aussie results in the recent Commonwealth Contest, there’s news of an international YLs contest, and loads more besides. NewsWest is broadcast on-air, and can be heard online and on-demand. Visit our website, vk6 dot net to discover the many ways you can listen to NewsWest. NewsWest invites contributions to the news programme. You can send contributions by email to newswest@vk6.net You'll find links to resources on the vk6.net website where you'll also find information on where to hear the news, where to download it, how to rebroadcast this news and how to register your callbacks. If you want to join in, you can. Send an email to newswest@vk6.net and we'll be happy to respond. Send your stories, tall or true, audio production, scripts, events, updates, membership information, meeting announcements, AGM alerts, contests, swap-meets and more to us and we'll happily present your contribution on-air. Please register your callback, either on-air or online. Visit vk6.net and click on the callback button. Originating in Perth Western Australia NewsWest is produced by WA Amateur Radio News for listeners on-air, on-line and on-demand. NewsWest audio (mp3) is available for download from our website, vk6.net. Click on the “LISTEN” tab. Whichever way you're listening, whether you're a licensed radio amateur or not, experienced or just a beginner, old or young, thanks for being here and thanks for joining us. Get your copy: http://vk6.net/news/ NewsWest is broadcast and relayed across VK6 and far beyond by many transmitters and operators. Details can be found on vk6.net. The main VK6 NewsWest broadcast occurs at 09:30 WST (01:30 UTC). If you'd like to broadcast this news in your local area, you can. There are no restrictions on broadcasting NewsWest, other than that you must broadcast it as supplied without any modification. We ask that broadcasters advise us that they're transmitting the news. Our address is newswest@vk6.net Producer: Bob VK6POP Folge direkt herunterladen

Esta semana DJ Ki e YLS estão no comando dos decks para recordar e celebrar a promotora SYNDICATE! DJ Ki ___ 01. Source Direct - Secret Liasion [Good Looking] 02. Aquarius - Dolphin Tune [Good Looking] 03. Source Direct - Snake Style [Source Direct] 04. Blame Planet - Neptune [Moving Shadow] 05. Source Direct - Two Masks [Science] 06. Digital - Chameleon [Timeless] 07. Rufige Kru - Dark Metal (Source Direct Remix) [Razors Edge] 08. Ed Rush - Gun Check [No U-Turn] YLS ___ 09. Dom & Roland - Dred Sound [Dom & Roland Productions] 10. Coco Bryce - Kaguya [Myor] 11. Friske - Rebel Force [Metalheadz] 12. Ink, Loxy & Resound - Doom [ILR Studios] 13. Sully - Swandive [Astrophonica] 14. DJ Krust - Set Speed [V] 15. Workforce - Simple, Positive Things [1985] 16. Myth - 3rd Time Lucky [The North Quarter] 17. Mako - The Scenic Values [Metalheadz] 18. Alix Perez - Ain't Nothing [1985] 19. Amoss - Revival [Flexout Audio] 20. Dabs - Sleepless City (HLZ RMX) [Dispatch] 21. Molecular - The Computer [Delta9] 22. Acid_Lab - Down to the Ground [Conveyor] Programa emitido a 30 Jan 2021 na Rádio Oxigénio (102.6 FM).

GB2RS NEWS Sunday the 6th of September 2020 The news headlines: Latest RSGB Convention information Anyone lost a trailer mast? GB2RS Newsreader stands down after 40 years During the online RSGB Convention for 2020, you will be able to enjoy some excellent lectures. On Saturday the 10th of October, the RSGB will be putting on two streams online for everyone to enjoy. In An introduction to… we will have How to get the most out of your dealer for your part-exchange with Martin Lynch, G4HKS. After over 42 years in the amateur radio business, Martin knows a thing or two about trade-in values for equipment and accessories and he’ll explain the best method of achieving the most for your part exchange or outright sale. In the Learn more about… stream, William Eustace, M0WJE will look at DSP: Underlying Concepts. Digital signal processing is built into most new radios for the amateur market, while tools like GNURadio have enabled amateurs to assemble signal processing systems with little or no code and William plans to give an easily-understood explanation. You can find out more at www.rsgb.org.uk/convention. We received news from the Warwickshire Police Rural Crime Team regarding a trailer-mounted Strumech mast they believe may be stolen property. If you think you know where this tower belongs and can identify the mast, please contact PC Craig Purcell either by text, call or WhatsApp on 0779 059 7820. After more than forty years as a GB2RS newsreader for the northeast, Martin, G3USF has decided to retire. The RSGB would like to thank him for his many years of service to the amateur radio community. Eddie, G0VVT is standing in to keep the news readings going in the future. The RSGB’s autumn Tonight @ 8 webinar series starts this Monday, the 7th of September with Portable adventures with Summits on the Air by James, M0JCQ. Join live and ask questions on the Society’s YouTube channel or via the special BATC channel. On the RSGB website, you can find further information about the webinar series, presenters and resources to help you explore each topic more fully at www.rsgb.org/webinars. The popular event Churches and Chapels On The Air will still take place this year, despite Covid-19 restrictions. On Saturday the 12th of September, operators will be a mix of individual activities nears churches as well as operating from home. Activity is usually 10 am to 4 pm and mainly on the 80, 40 and 20m bands using SSB. Contact John, G3XYF via jhwresdell@gmail for more details. The RSGB has updated some of its web pages to reflect online remote invigilation exams and online training processes whilst physical meetings are still restricted. The Student Information section on the Society’s website has full Candidate Instructions for the remote invigilation exams, information about how to book your exams as well as a new page listing the online training providers that we are aware of. If your club is providing online training at any licence level and is not listed, please send full details to exams@rsgb.org.uk and the RSGB will add you to the new web list. For details of all the licence levels visit the Student Information web page at https://tinyurl.com/rsgb-student-information. The Portable Operations Challenge is a new kind of HF contest. It will take place on the weekend of the 3rd and 4th of October. The aim of the challenge is to create a level playing field for small portable stations against the large contest stations by using handicapping algorithms similar to that used in golf. Participants choose their own 8-hour contiguous time window within the 48-hour weekend. Find out all you need to know at foxmikehotel.com/challenge. ARISS has announced the activation of an FM cross-band repeater on the International Space Station. It has a downlink frequency of 437.800MHz. This followed the successful installation of the first element of the ARISS Interoperable Radio System. It enables new, exciting capabilities for amateur radio operators, students and the general public including a higher power radio, voice repeater, APRS capabilities and an SSTV system. Further details are at https://amsat-uk.org. In the news item about the GB2RS Podcast last week there was an error. It’s not approaching twenty thousand downloads, it’s actually approaching two hundred thousand downloads. Our apologies to all those involved in this highly successful method of distributing GB2RS. The RSGB Morse Proficiency testing service continues to operate during this time of limitations on face-to-face meetings. Many of the scheme's Assessors are experienced in offering online testing. This means there's always an opportunity for anyone to obtain a Certificate of Competency, without leaving their home, by using an online sound and video program such as Skype. Full details of the Scheme can be found in the RSGB Yearbook or on the Operating section of the RSGB website. If you want more information or to submit a Test application this can be done using email to morse.tests@rsgb.org.uk. Don’t forget any nomination for the G5RP Trophy needs to be in by 25th September. If you are an established HF DXer and want to recommend someone, send your nominations to Ian Greenshields, G4FSU by email to hf.manager@rsgb.org.uk. The RSGB 2020 Construction Competition is also open for entries. There are four categories, including one specifically for people who are new to amateur radio. The deadline for entries is the 25th of September. For more details, including how to enter, see www.rsgb.org/construction-competition. OE SOTA Day is a popular annual Summits on the Air event, organised by the Austrian SOTA Association and will still take place on Saturday 19 September, but with no social meeting. It will be a festival of SOTA activations to mark the end of summer in Europe. The day should offer a very good opportunity for chasers to amass a large number of points and unique summits worked. For more information about the SOTA scheme, please visit www.sota.org.uk. Now the special event news Since the change of regulations applying to special event stations in the UK, many activations are now able to go ahead. UK amateurs would like to thank Ofcom for their help in making this happen. Members of the Royal Air Force ARS will be operating GB80BOB from the 1st to the 28th of September to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. Due to Covid-19, Ofcom are allowing this call to be operated from homes. A list of operators and postcode locations will be displayed on the RAFARS website. A special QSL card is available. Details are at www.rafars.org/GB80BOB/ and QRZ.com. Now the contest news Please remember to check before the contest for new rules due to lockdown and social distancing, which may differ around the world. The RSGB strongly advises obeying your own national and local government’s advice first and foremost, especially in the instance of local lockdowns. Three RSGB contests take place over this weekend, the 5th and 6th September. SSB Field Day runs for 24 hours until 1300UTC today, the 6th. Using the 3.5 to 28MHz contest bands, the exchange is signal report and serial number. The 144MHz Trophy is also 24 hours but ends at 1400UTC today, the 6th. Its exchange is signal report, serial number and locator. The 5th 144MHz Backpacker contest runs from 1100 to 1500UTC today, the 6th. Using all modes, the exchange is signal report, serial number and locator. Sadly, the HF and VHF Contest Committees have come to the conclusion that the Government guidance on Covid-19 does not yet allow the restart of multi-operator sections in RSGB contests. The rules for all RSGB Contests can be found at www.rsgbcc.org. The All-Asian DX Contest ends its 48 hour runs at 2359UTC today, the 6th. Using SSB on the 1.8 to 28MHz contest bands, the exchange is signal report and age, with YLs sending 00. The IARU Region 1 Field Day ends its 24 hour run today, the 6th. Using SSB on the 3.5 to 28MHz bands, the exchange is signal report and serial number. The Worked All Britain 144MHz QRO Contest is today, the 6th, from 1000 to 1400UTC. The exchange is signal report, serial number and WAB square. The contest runs concurrently with part of the RSGB contest, and RSGB serial numbers will be accepted. Due to Covid-19, no multi-operator entries are allowed. See http://wab.intermip.net/default.php for details. It’s time to decide if you or your club would like to take part in the Autumn Series of 80m Contests, which start with an SSB event on Monday the 7th September. These are 90-minute contests that have boosted scores for Foundation and Intermediate entrants and rules designed to encourage newcomers. Running from 1900 to 2130UTC, the exchange is signal report and serial number. On Tuesday the 432MHz FM Activity Contest runs from 1800 to 1855UTC. It is followed from 1900 to 2130UTC by the all-mode 432MH UK Activity Contest. The exchange for both is signal report, serial number and locator. On Thursday the 50MHz UK Activity Contest runs from 1900 to 2100UTC. Using all modes, the exchange is signal report, serial number and locator. The WAE DX SSB contest runs for 48 hours next weekend from 0000UTC on the 12th to 2359UTC on the 13th. Using SSB on the 3.5 to 28MHz contest bands, the exchange is signal report and serial number. Note the EU stations only work non-EU stations. The UK Microwave Group contest runs from 0900 to 1700UTC on the 13th. Using all modes on the 24 to 248GHz bands, the exchange is signal report, serial number and locator. Also on the 13th, the IRTS 70cm Counties contest runs from 1300 to 1330UTC. This is followed by the IRTS 2m Counties contest from 1330 to 1500UTC. Both use SSB and FM only and the exchange is signal report and serial number with EI and GI stations also giving their county. Now the radio propagation report, compiled by G0KYA, G3YLA and G4BAO on Friday the 4th of September. This last week was characterised by unsettled geomagnetic conditions caused by an incoming high-speed stream for a solar coronal hole. We warned of this in last week’s report, but in view of the small size of the coronal hole, we didn’t really expect its effects to be quite so severe. The solar material impacted the Earth on Friday the 28th of August, pushing the Kp index to five. Unsettled conditions then persisted through until at least Wednesday, with the Kp index peaking at four on Tuesday the 4th. Ionospheric HF conditions were adversely affected, with maximum usable frequencies over a 3,000km path struggling to get much above 14MHz at times. But by Thursday the Kp index was down to one and the ionosphere was recovering. At the time of writing, there are large coronal holes at the Sun’s poles, but any solar material may not be Earth-directed. NOAA predicts the Sun will remain spotless next week, with a maximum solar flux index of 70. The good news is it has the Kp index at two, which could bode well for better HF conditions over the next seven days. On another note, the website Propquest.co.uk has a new NVIS tab on the foF2 graphs tab for a closer look at the prospects for inter-G nets on the lower HF bands. And now the VHF and up propagation news. This will probably be the final mention of Sporadic-E in the bulletin for this summer season. The coming week might offer some good opportunities from the jet streams, the main source of the turbulence that produces atmospheric gravity waves, so don’t rule Sporadic-E out just because it’s September. With a low Kp index you might be able to get the odd FT8 path out of it, and even a chance of CW or SSB if you’re really lucky. Propquest.co.uk shows the daily jet stream maps and now we also have the Sporadic-E Probability Index, a single graphic to look at for hints of where the paths may occur. We had some decent Tropo over the last week, but it has temporarily suspended for now. Towards the end of Sunday a new high will build in from the Atlantic and, for much of the coming week, there should be some Tropo chances as high pressure dominates. It’s looking like reverting to low pressure and wet weather by next weekend. The models are showing some heavy rain in some areas, so there is a potential for strong GHz bands rain scatter events. Finally, autumn usually produces better chances of auroral propagation, and with the recently disturbed conditions, keep a check on the Kp index. Anything above four should attract attention. Aurora produces a very garbled distorted sound to SSB, so CW is best but wide-tone digimodes such as JT4G should work well. Beam north-east to the north-northwest and you could work stations via backscatter on 6m or 2m. Moon declination is positive again, meaning longer Moon windows. Today, Sunday the 6th, the Moon is at apogee so EME path losses are at their highest. 144MHz sky temperatures are moderate all week. Just one small meteor shower this week, peaking on Wednesday, the September Epsilon-Perseids with a Zenithal Hourly Rate (ZHR) of just five. And that’s all from the propagation team this week.

GB2RS NEWS Sunday the 30th of August 2020 The news headlines: Could you join the RSGB Board? Latest Online RSGB Convention news 200,000 downloads for GB2RS Podcast Following recent changes to the RSGB Board of Directors and the continuing effects of the ongoing pandemic, the RSGB is looking for Members to be considered for possible appointment to the Board. For more details about the Board, the essential personal attributes needed to be a Board Director and how to apply, see the RSGB website at www.rsgb.org/volunteers. During the online RSGB Convention for 2020, you will be able to enjoy some excellent lectures. On Saturday the 10th of October, the RSGB will be putting on two streams online for everyone to enjoy. In An introduction to… we will have the magic of six metres by Chris Deacon, G4IFX. Join him to learn what makes the 6m band so special, how to get started – and how to get the best out of it. In the Learn more about… stream, Olof Lundberg, G0CKV will speak about having fun with HF contesting. There are so many factors that influence contest results – contesting rarely takes place on an even playing field. The fairest competition might well be with yourself and Olaf will go through some ways to improve your scores and enjoy your contesting experience. You can find out more at www.rsgb.org.uk/convention. As the GB2RS Podcast approaches two hundred thousand downloads, two additional ways to receive the podcast have been added. Amazon Podcasts and Audible will carry the RSGB broadcast each week in addition to Apple, Blubrry, Stitcher and others who have been carrying the program for some time. A podcast is a short audio program that can be heard on a PC, smartphone or home audio device. It provides a way to publicise UK amateur radio even when listeners are out of range of the HF & VHF newsreaders. The GB2RS Podcast has been read by Jeremy, G4NJH for over 12 years. See https://rsgb.org/main/gb2rs/gb2rs-podcast for details. Fred, M3CTW will celebrate his 100th birthday on the 1st of September and we wish him many happy returns. He is still active on the air and a recent contact told us that Fred speaks with the fluency of a much younger person and operates his radio in an excellent manner. The media is still interested in the continuing growth of amateur radio and the RSGB is enjoying sharing stories with them, such as the interview with ten-year-old William, M7WHB that was featured in the i newspaper. The Society has also collected some great descriptions from new licensees who tell us why they are interested in amateur radio and what they’re keen to discover within the hobby. You can read all of these in the different parts of the Get on the air to care section of our website at www.rsgb.org/gota2c. The G5RP Trophy is an annual award to encourage any RSGB Member who has recently discovered and made significant progress in HF DXing. If you are an established HF DXer and want to recommend someone to be awarded the G5RP Trophy for 2020, send your nominations to Ian Greenshields, G4FSU by email to hf.manager@rsgb.org.uk to arrive no later than the 25th of September. The G-QRP club has released a detailed agenda for its Online Convention 2020, which takes place on Saturday 5th and Sunday 6th September. Details of the agenda and how to sign up can be found at www.gqrp.com/convention.htm. The RSGB 2020 Construction Competition is open for entries. There are four categories, including one specifically for people who are new to amateur radio. The deadline for entries is the 25th of September. For more details, including how to enter, see www.rsgb.org/construction-competition. International Air Ambulance Week will take place between the 5th and the 13th of September. It covers two weekends, giving amateurs a great chance to get involved and support the event. A free series of Awards will be available for those who support the event. Go to www.radio-amateur-events.org/IAW/Registration.htm. Now the special event news Since the change of regulations applying to special event stations in the UK, many activations are now able to go ahead. UK amateurs would like to thank Ofcom for their help in making this happen. Members of the Royal Air Force ARS will be operating GB80BOB from the 1st to the 28th of September to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. Due to Covid-19, Ofcom are allowing this call to be operated from homes. A list of operators and postcode locations will be displayed on the RAFARS website. A special QSL card is available. Details are at www.rafars.org/GB80BOB/ and QRZ.com. Now the contest news Please remember to check before the contest for new rules due to lockdown and social distancing, which may differ around the world. The RSGB strongly advises obeying your own national and local government’s advice first and foremost, especially in the instance of local lockdowns. Today, the 30th, The UK Microwave group’s High Band contest runs from 0600 to 1800UTC. Using all modes on the 5.7 to 10GHz bands, the exchange is signal report, serial number and locator. On Tuesday the 144MHZ FM Activity Contest runs from 1800 to 1855UTC. It is followed by the all-mode 144MHz UK Activity Contest at 1900 to 2130UTC. The exchange is the same for both: signal report, serial number and locator. On Wednesday the UK EI Contest Club contest runs from 2000 to 2100UTC. Using SSB only on the 80m band, the exchange is your 4-character locator square. Three RSGB contests take place over next weekend, the 5th and 6th September. SSB Field Day runs for 24 hours from 1300UTC on Saturday the 5th until 1300UTC on Sunday the 6th. Using the 3.5 to 28MHz contest bands, the exchange is signal report and serial number. The 144MHz Trophy is also 24 hours but ends at 1400UTC on the 6th. Its exchange is signal report, serial number and locator. The 5th 144MHz Backpacker runs from 1100 to 1500UTC on the 6th. Using all modes, the exchange is signal report, serial number and locator. Sadly, the HF and VHF Contest Committees have come to the conclusion that the Government guidance on Covid-19 does not yet allow the restart of multi-operator sections in RSGB contests. The rules for all RSGB Contests can be found at www.rsgbcc.org. The CW Open for 2020 takes place on the 5th of September. There are three sessions: from 0000 – 0359, 1200 – 1559 and 2000 – 2359UTC. The exchange is signal report and your name. The All Asian DX contest runs from 0000UTC on the 5th to 2359UTC on the 6th. Using SSB on the 1.8 to 28MHz contest bands, the exchange is signal report and age, with YLs sending 00. The IARU Region 1 Field Day runs from 1300UTC on the 5th to 1300UTC on the 6th. Using SSB on the 3.5 to 28MHz bands, the exchange is signal report and serial number. The Worked All Britain 144MHz QRO Contest is on Sunday the 6th from 1000 to 1400UTC. The exchange is the report, serial number and WAB square. The contest runs concurrently with part of the RSGB contest and RSGB serial numbers will be accepted. Due to Covid-19, no multi-operator entries are allowed. See http://wab.intermip.net/default.php for details. Now the radio propagation report, compiled by G0KYA, G3YLA and G4BAO on Friday the 28th of August. It was a quiet week, with zero sunspots and relatively quiet geomagnetic conditions and a maximum Kp index of three. After the new sunspots appeared over the past few weeks it did look like Solar Cycle 25 was getting underway. But it now looks like we may have to wait a little longer, languishing at solar minimum for the next couple of months. It was not all bad news though. Laurie, G3UML reports good conditions on 20m SSB. He worked A25 Botswana and ZS3 South Africa, plus Ross, ZL1WN in New Zealand via the long path. Laurie said signals from the Middle East were also strong. A series of narrow coronal holes are now beginning to partially face Earth. An elevated coronal hole stream should begin to move past Earth by Saturday 29th August, which could lead to an elevated Kp index and visible aurora at higher latitudes. Other than that there is little to see on the STEREO Ahead spacecraft imagery. Barring surprises, this suggests the Sun will remain quiet from Monday. NOAA has the solar flux index at 70-71 for the next seven days. The elevated Kp index over the weekend may cause MUFs to decline, but next week should see the ionosphere settle back down to a Kp maximum of two and normal HF conditions. Maximum usable frequencies over a 3,000km path should remain similar to previous weeks. Expect 20 metres to be the DX band of choice, with some openings on 17m at times. There is always the chance of DX appearing on 15, 12 and even 10 metres, but these openings are likely to be short-lived and infrequent. The good news is that next week we move into September, which should see a return to higher MUFs and better DX as the month progresses. This will also be a good time to work North-South paths, such as the UK to South Africa and South America. And now the VHF and up propagation news. This period of more changeable weather is going to be hard to break and it looks like any weak ridges between the lows will be transient affairs. They are therefore unlikely to feature highly as Tropo events, although the odd temporary lift is possible. The nature of unsettled weather, like the spell we’re in now, is such that the late summer sunshine can easily produce showers or even thunderstorms. These are very good for rain scatter and for most of the period from this weekend to next, a weather front or heavy showers may not be far away. So we’re entering another potentially productive period for the GHz rain scatter enthusiasts. We are running out of time to mention Sporadic-E, so this may be the penultimate week. Clutching at straws perhaps, but there are some good jet streams in periods of unsettled weather and the next week will continue to look promising from a weather perspective, even though events are likely to be thin on the ground. Moon declination is at a minimum today, but goes positive again on Friday, meaning Moon windows are getting longer. EME path losses are still rising, with apogee a week today. 144MHz sky temperatures are low all week, but the low Moon elevations mean that the noisy horizon will be in antenna beamwidths for the first part of the week. Just one small meteor shower this week, the Aurigids, peaking on Monday with a Zenith Hourly Rate of six. And that’s all from the propagation team this week.

On this special edition of Ham Nation, Amanda and Valerie feature leading YLs in amateur radio:Anne Dirkman KC9YL on the history of YLRLLeanne Bulger W4LEA on teaching CWAndrea Slack K2EZ and the evolution of her amazing mobile Rover stationMichelle Carey W5MQC with a very active all YL clubAnd Dr. Tamitha Skov WX6SWW joins with a live Solar Update and Q&A! Hosts: Amanda Alden, Valerie Hotzfeld, George Thomas, and Don Wilbanks We invite you to read, add to, and amend our show notes at wiki.twit.tv. Submit your own video to Ham Nation at HamNationVideos@twit.tv Thanks to Joe Walsh who wrote and plays the Ham Nation theme. Check out Ham Nation on Facebook and Twitter! Download or subscribe to Ham Nation at https://twit.tv/shows/ham-nation Sponsor: icomamerica.com/hamnation

On this special edition of Ham Nation, Amanda and Valerie feature leading YLs in amateur radio:Anne Dirkman KC9YL on the history of YLRLLeanne Bulger W4LEA on teaching CWAndrea Slack K2EZ and the evolution of her amazing mobile Rover stationMichelle Carey W5MQC with a very active all YL clubAnd Dr. Tamitha Skov WX6SWW joins with a live Solar Update and Q&A! Hosts: Amanda Alden, Valerie Hotzfeld, George Thomas, and Don Wilbanks We invite you to read, add to, and amend our show notes at wiki.twit.tv. Submit your own video to Ham Nation at HamNationVideos@twit.tv Thanks to Joe Walsh who wrote and plays the Ham Nation theme. Check out Ham Nation on Facebook and Twitter! Download or subscribe to Ham Nation at https://twit.tv/shows/ham-nation Sponsor: icomamerica.com/hamnation

On this special edition of Ham Nation, Amanda and Valerie feature leading YLs in amateur radio:Anne Dirkman KC9YL on the history of YLRLLeanne Bulger W4LEA on teaching CWAndrea Slack K2EZ and the evolution of her amazing mobile Rover stationMichelle Carey W5MQC with a very active all YL clubAnd Dr. Tamitha Skov WX6SWW joins with a live Solar Update and Q&A! Hosts: Amanda Alden, Valerie Hotzfeld, George Thomas, and Don Wilbanks We invite you to read, add to, and amend our show notes at wiki.twit.tv. Submit your own video to Ham Nation at HamNationVideos@twit.tv Thanks to Joe Walsh who wrote and plays the Ham Nation theme. Check out Ham Nation on Facebook and Twitter! Download or subscribe to Ham Nation at https://twit.tv/shows/ham-nation Sponsor: icomamerica.com/hamnation

On this special edition of Ham Nation, Amanda and Valerie feature leading YLs in amateur radio:Anne Dirkman KC9YL on the history of YLRLLeanne Bulger W4LEA on teaching CWAndrea Slack K2EZ and the evolution of her amazing mobile Rover stationMichelle Carey W5MQC with a very active all YL clubAnd Dr. Tamitha Skov WX6SWW joins with a live Solar Update and Q&A! Hosts: Amanda Alden, Valerie Hotzfeld, George Thomas, and Don Wilbanks We invite you to read, add to, and amend our show notes at wiki.twit.tv. Submit your own video to Ham Nation at HamNationVideos@twit.tv Thanks to Joe Walsh who wrote and plays the Ham Nation theme. Check out Ham Nation on Facebook and Twitter! Download or subscribe to Ham Nation at https://twit.tv/shows/ham-nation Sponsor: icomamerica.com/hamnation

On this special edition of Ham Nation, Amanda and Valerie feature leading YLs in amateur radio:Anne Dirkman KC9YL on the history of YLRLLeanne Bulger W4LEA on teaching CWAndrea Slack K2EZ and the evolution of her amazing mobile Rover stationMichelle Carey W5MQC with a very active all YL clubAnd Dr. Tamitha Skov WX6SWW joins with a live Solar Update and Q&A! Hosts: Amanda Alden, Valerie Hotzfeld, George Thomas, and Don Wilbanks We invite you to read, add to, and amend our show notes at wiki.twit.tv. Submit your own video to Ham Nation at HamNationVideos@twit.tv Thanks to Joe Walsh who wrote and plays the Ham Nation theme. Check out Ham Nation on Facebook and Twitter! Download or subscribe to Ham Nation at https://twit.tv/shows/ham-nation Sponsor: icomamerica.com/hamnation

In this week's episode of Expand Your Horizons, we're talking with Andrew Watson about strategies for teaching young learners online. Andrew has great insight on working with young learners as well as extensive experience in the ELT industry. He got his first teaching job in South Korea in 1994, and since then, he’s held a variety of EFL jobs including teacher, IELTS oral examiner, young learners’ coordinator at the British Council, CELTA and ICELT teacher trainer and developer. He holds a DELTA certification and an MAEd in Applied Linguistics. In our conversation, Andrew and I discuss the key differences between working with adults and working with children in the ESL classroom, and Andrew shares a wealth of practical tips for teaching YLs both in the physical classroom and online.

On the first episode of YLS of the year, Cody judges everyone’s best of the 2010s list!

Many people doubt the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Yet, while the laws of physics are God's normal way of keeping the universe running, he sometimes does the abnormal, miracles. We should not doubt them. Followers of Jesus believe in the resurrection, have the assured hope of eternal life, instead of sinning by refusing to trust in the facts of the resurrection that God has provided us in history. Praise God for all that he has done or us, and that all we have to do is accept his salvation by faith, with thanks. Watch: https://youtu.be/ylS_c_R6TGE

Many people doubt the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Yet, while the laws of physics are God's normal way of keeping the universe running, he sometimes does the abnormal, miracles. We should not doubt them. Followers of Jesus believe in the resurrection, have the assured hope of eternal life, instead of sinning by refusing to trust in the facts of the resurrection that God has provided us in history. Praise God for all that he has done or us, and that all we have to do is accept his salvation by faith, with thanks. Watch: https://youtu.be/ylS_c_R6TGE

Many people doubt the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Yet, while the laws of physics are God's normal way of keeping the universe running, he sometimes does the abnormal, miracles. We should not doubt them. Followers of Jesus believe in the resurrection, have the assured hope of eternal life, instead of sinning by refusing to trust in the facts of the resurrection that God has provided us in history. Praise God for all that he has done or us, and that all we have to do is accept his salvation by faith, with thanks. Watch: https://youtu.be/ylS_c_R6TGE

Welcome to the third episode of YLS. We have BRANDON MICHAEL aka BOO BOO MONEY of Allegaeon in the house; a very special guest. We reminisce our history of how we all met. We talk about how his current music career and how his life came about. Co-hosted by the one and only DAVID PARK BRANDON MICHAEL @brandon.w.michael @allegaeonofficial @peasanthandsofficial @funkymerlots __________________________ David Park @idkdavidpark Art Soto @artieboysucks

In this episode Nathan Harmon and Jacob Pierson give a quick rundown of the past school year for YLS and talk about being tolerant and accepting others.Follow us on Social Media:Nathan Harmon’s Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/your_life_speaks/?hl=enJacob Pierson’s Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/jacobnpierson/Dr. Doug Miller’s Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/drdougmiller/?hl=enNathan Harmon’s Facebook Page - https://www.facebook.com/Nathan-Harmon-101393003845274/Your Life Speaks Facebook Page - https://www.facebook.com/yourlifespeaksDr. Doug Miller’s Facebook Page - https://www.facebook.com/drdougmillercoaching/?rf=1745207205754985Your Life Speaks Website - www.yourlifespeaks.orgDr. Doug Miller’s Website - www.drdougmiller.comFor more information or for business inquiries please email nathanharmonpodcast@gmail.comIf you or someone you know is struggling with mental health or suicide call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 or visit their website at http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.orgIn case of an emergency please call 911.*The “Real Life” podcast is in no way meant to act as, or replace therapy or counseling from a mental health professional. Anything said in this podcast is strictly opinion and should be treated as such. If you’re having suicidal thoughts call 911 or go to the nearest hospital emergency room.

The second episode of YLS. Listen to the audio of Donnell Asare's first ever LinkedIn Video (16/2/2018), which paved the way for his success on the platform. The video gained many likes and reached over 4,000 views. It was both a successful and humbling experience. Please do enjoy!

In this weeks news we cover - Board comment by Phil VK2ASD, VK3PC Funeral Details, 2018 WIA Radio and Electronics Convention and AGM, Callbacks report, Spratly Islands, Where is Earhart, Hina Matsuri and PicSat, Ross Hull Contest for 2018, Space Weather Report, VK2, 3 & 4 events, Yls around the World, RAOTC Broadcast, YOTA in NOTA, DroneFest and Summit to Summit and finish with Spies and Cladestine Radios in Scotland!

In this cram-packed edition we cover - Jim Linton VK3PC Silent Key, WIA Board Comment from Peter VK8ZZ, Callbacks calbacks everywhere, When all else fails, Wireless Power Transfer the new BPL, Bouvet Island and Serious Fines, VK3RWO & VK2RBB repeaters, Meet the Voice in VK7, The John Moyle in Townsville, Byrds Morse Key and ANZAC CW and AM, YLs around the world, Social Scene and we finish with the Thingaverse and amateur radio.

In this weeks news we hear from Geoff VK4ZPP on Holcracy, WIA Director Marcus VK5WTF provides this weeks Board Comment then across to Aidan VK4APM on the WIA Radio and Electronics Convention in May, John VK5DJ lets us know about the Australian Fox Hunting Championships, Its only one week to Wyong and Bob VK2AOR and Ed DD5LP fills us in, YLs and ILLW, long distance VHF and Overseas DX events, VK3RTV on the move and we have a new regular segment on YLs Around the World thanks to Kimberley VK2KMI and we finish with Mrs Mac and spy stations in North Korea.

WIA Director Comment from VP David VK4MZ, ACMA Spectrum Planning taken seriously, German decisions, a welcome to Kosovo and calling all Leprechauns, The Ted Powell Memorial DX Challenge winner announced, Wyong Field Day just around the corner, NASA Zombie Satellite Hunting, Satellite Budgie Smugglers including YLs on AO-92, RAOTC on the war between Edison and Tesla and strange voices on the airwaves in North West VK7.

The first episode in a series that looks at the 15 principles of teaching and learning that lie at the heart of Yeshiva Lab School. YLS is a new educationally progressive Modern Orthodox Yeshiva Elementary School in Lower Merion, PA founded by the Kohelet Foundation. Each episode is hosted by Rabbi Dr. Gil Perl, Chief Academic Officer of the Kohelet Foundation and leader of the Design Team at Yeshiva Lab School. For a video version of these podcasts, visit: http://tinyurl.com/principles-of-pedagogy

The second episode in a series that looks at the 15 principles of teaching and learning that lie at the heart of Yeshiva Lab School. This episode looks at the idea that information has to be presented "whole to part." YLS is a new educationally progressive Modern Orthodox Yeshiva Elementary School in Lower Merion, PA founded by the Kohelet Foundation. Each episode is hosted by Rabbi Dr. Gil Perl, Chief Academic Officer of the Kohelet Foundation and leader of the Design Team at Yeshiva Lab School.

For our 5th birthday, YLS offered us a mixtape with 45 minutes of the purest drum and bass.

Eugene Rusyn, YLS '17, sits down in the studio with Professor Jim Grijalva to discuss environmental law on Indian lands. Professor Grijalva is an expert in federal Indian law, environmental law, and environmental justice and is the director of the Tribal Environmental Law Project at the University of North Dakota School of Law.

The Federalists Society at Yale Law School sponsored a debate on intellectual property protections concerning human rights and medical innovation between NYU Law Professor Richard Epstein and YLS visiting Assoc Professor Amy Kapczynski.