Posts

Posted on

The Gist - Mike and Frank Take the Stage

On The Gist, Matthew Dicks and your host record the show in the wee hours of the night, after seeing a Bruce Springsteen concert. They’ll present two stories from the Story Collider storytelling night at the Kraine Theater in New York. The first features our winning Gist listener Frank Kennedy, who tells a story of trying to connect with his autistic son. For the Spiel, Mike takes the stage to tell the story behind his big scoop at Super Bowl XLVII in New Orleans. Special thanks this episode to Rose Eveleth, Ben Lillie, and Erin Barker for organizing and recording a wonderful night of stories. They have shows coming up Feb. 16 and March 15 in Brooklyn, and one on March 17 in London. Matthew Dicks is the author of The Perfect Comeback of Caroline Jacobs. You can listen back to all the past appearances in our storytelling series here on Soundcloud. Join Slate Plus! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today at slate.com/gistplus.  

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Posted on

SCOTUScast - Hurst v. Florida – Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On January 12, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Hurst v. Florida. The question before the Court was whether Florida’s death sentencing scheme--which Hurst contends does not require unanimity in the jury death recommendation or in the finding of underlying aggravating factors--violates the Sixth and/or Eighth Amendments in light of the Court’s 2002 decision Ring v. Arizona, which requires that the aggravating factors necessary for imposition of a death sentence be found by a jury. The Florida Supreme Court upheld Hurst’s death sentence. -- By a vote of 8-1, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court and remanded the case, holding that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme did violate the Sixth Amendment in light of Ring. Justice Sotomayor’s opinion for the Court was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have Jack Park, who is Of Counsel with Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.
Posted on

SCOTUScast - Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission – Post-Argument SCOTUScast

On December 8, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. In 2012, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission redrew the map for the state legislative districts based on the results of the 2010 census. Wesley Harris and other individual voters sued the Commission and alleged that the newly redrawn districts were underpopulated in Democratic-leaning districts and over-populated in Republican-leaning ones, and that the Commission had, therefore, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Commission countered that the population deviations were the result of attempts to comply with the Voting Rights Act. A three-judge district court ruled in favor of the Commission. -- There are two questions before the Supreme Court on appeal: (1) Whether the desire to gain partisan advantage for one political party justifies creating over-populated legislative districts that result in the devaluation of individual votes, violating the one-person, one-vote principle; and (2) whether the desire to obtain favorable preclearance review by the Justice Department permits the creation of legislative districts that deviate from the one-person, one-vote principle, and--even if creating unequal districts to obtain preclearance approval was once justified--whether this remains a legitimate justification after the Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder. -- To discuss the case, we have Mark F. Hearne, II, who is Partner at Arent Fox LLP.
Posted on

SCOTUScast - Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin – Post-Argument SCOTUScast

On December 9, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. This is the second time the case has come before the high court. -- Abigail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. Fisher sued the University and argued that the use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that the University’s admissions process was constitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The case went to the Supreme Court (Fisher I), which held that the appellate court erred in how it applied the strict scrutiny standard, improperly deferring to the University’s good faith in its use of racial classifications. On remand the Fifth Circuit again ruled in favor of the University, deeming its use of race in the admissions process narrowly tailored to a legitimate interest in achieving “the rich diversity that contributes to its academic mission.” -- The question in this case is whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Fisher I. -- To discuss the case, we have Joshua P. Thompson who is Principal Attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation.
Posted on

SCOTUScast - Evenwel v. Abbott – Post-Argument SCOTUScast

On December 8, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Evenwel v. Abbott. As required by the Texas Constitution, the Texas legislature reapportioned its senate districts after the publication of the 2010 census, formally adopting an interim plan that had been put in place for the 2012 primaries. Plaintiffs, who are registered Texas voters, sued the Texas governor and secretary of state, asserting that the redistricting plan violated the one-person, one-vote principle of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, by failing to apportion districts to equalize both total population and voter population. A three-judge district court ruled in favor of the state officials. -- On appeal, the question before the Supreme Court is whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “one-person, one-vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter population when apportioning state legislative districts. -- To discuss the case, we have Andrew Grossman, who is Associate at Baker & Hostetler, and Adjunct Scholar at The Cato Institute.
Posted on

SCOTUScast - Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo – Post-Argument SCOTUScast

On November 10, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo. Peg Bouaphakeo and the rest of the plaintiffs in this class action are current and former employees of Tyson Foods. They claim that Tyson violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying them for time spent putting on and taking off protective clothing at the beginning and end of the work day and before and after lunch. The district court certified the class, and the jury returned a multi-million dollar verdict in their favor. Tyson argued on appeal that certification was improper due to factual differences among plaintiffs, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court. -- The questions before the Supreme Court are twofold: (1) Whether differences among individual class members may be ignored and a class action certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), or a collective action certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act, where liability and damages will be determined with statistical techniques that presume all class members are identical to the average observed in a sample; and (2) whether a class action may be certified or maintained under Rule 23(b)(3), or a collective action certified or maintained under the Fair Labor Standards Act, when the class contains hundreds of members who were not injured and have no legal right to any damages. -- To discuss the case, we have Karen Harned, who is Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Center.
Posted on

Serious Inquiries Only - AS214: Eli and Cecil

Eli and Cecil are back for an extra long show! No two parter this time, I figure you guys deserve a nice long juicy episode. The 3 of us talk about the infamous Eli episodes and what we all learned from it, and then go on to talk about other issues like Dawkins and the … Continue reading AS214: Eli and Cecil →

The post AS214: Eli and Cecil appeared first on Atheistically Speaking.

Posted on

the memory palace - Episode 82 (The Wheel)

Music * Julia Rovinsky plays Phillip Glass’ Metamorphosis I, from her album Dusk. * There’s an excerpt from Paul Drescher’s “Casa Vecchia,” from the Mirrors: Other Fire album. * There’s a chunk of Jose Gonzalez’ “Instrumental” from his Stay in the ShadeEP. * “Manny Returns Home” from Bernard Hermann’s score to The Wrong Man. * Branka Parlic plays Philip Glass’ “Mad Rush.” Twice. * “Quiet Fan for SK,” by P.G. Six. * Things get heavy to “Particles of the Universe (Heartbeats)” from Dan Romer and Ben Zeitlin’s score to Beasts of the Southern Wild.

Notes There’s a lot written about Robert Smalls, with a lot of contradictory information. I found Edward A. Miller’s Gullah Statesman: Robert Smalls from Slavery to Congress particularly useful to sorting it all out. Some other sources I consulted while researching this piece: * The Negro’s Civil War: How American Blacks Felt and Acted During the War for the Union by the Don, James McPherson * From Slavery to Public Service: Robert Smalls, 1839-1915, by Okon Uya. * And, for what it’s worth, Robert Smalls: The Boat Thief from RFK Jr.’s American Heroes Series is an enjoyable and surprisingly thorough version of the story for young readers, if you’re ever looking for that sort of thing.

Posted on

The Gist - Should We Fear Domestic Terrorism?

On The Gist, the daughter of a Fort Hood victim explains how she became friends with the shooter’s cousin. We’ll speak with the HBO documentary Homegrown’s filmmaker Greg Barker and subjects Kerry Cahill (the daughter), Nader Hasan (the cousin), and Philip Mudd, a veteran CIA and FBI counterterrorism official. Hasan and Cahill are both involved in the the Nawal Foundation. Mudd is the author of Takedown: Inside the Hunt for Al Qaeda. The documentary Homegrown is now available from HBO. For the Spiel, a special update about the New Hampshire primaries from the Realistic News Network™. Today’s sponsor: Betterment, the largest automated investing service—managing billions of dollars for people just like you. Get up to six months of investing free when you go to Betterment.com/gist. Join Slate Plus! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today at slate.com/gistplus.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Posted on

SCOTUScast - Heffernan v. City of Paterson – Post-Argument SCOTUScast

On January 19, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Heffernan v. City of Paterson. Jeffrey Heffernan was a police officer for the City of Paterson, New Jersey. A fellow police officer observed Heffernan picking up a campaign sign for the mayoral candidate running against the incumbent. Although Heffernan disclaimed any political motives and said he was merely picking the sign up for his mother, his supervisor demoted him. Heffernan sued Paterson claiming a violation of his First Amendment rights, but lost on the grounds that, his supervisor’s erroneous belief notwithstanding, the fact that Heffernan was not actually engaged in political activity doomed his claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether the First Amendment bars the government from demoting a public employee based on a supervisor's perception that the employee supports a political candidate. -- To discuss the case, we have Adele Keim, who is counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.