Welcome to Law and Disorder Radio
Law and Disorder is a weekly independent civil liberties radio program airing on more than 100 stations across the United States and podcasting on the web. Law and Disorder provides timely legal perspectives on issues concerning civil liberties, privacy, right to dissent and practices of torture exercised by the US government and private corporations.
Law and Disorder July 22, 2024
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Religious Nationalism and Separation of Church and State
The separation between church and state is a key component of our democracy, ensuring that freedom of belief is a right for all, not a privilege for some. The First Amendment’s establishment clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” has been understood to prohibit the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over others. This interpretation aims to ensure that the government remains neutral in religious matters and does not interfere with or support religious activities, thus maintaining a clear separation between religious institutions and government functions. Despite this, recent rulings by the right-leaning Supreme Court blur the lines between church and state and threaten to undermine this doctrine.
The rise of white Christian nationalism contributes to the degradation of the principle of separation of church and state. This movement reflects broader cultural and demographic trends and exerts significant influence on policy, public discourse, and grassroots movements. Addressing this issue involves understanding the underlying causes and promoting policies that uphold the constitutional commitment to religious neutrality and freedom.
Guest – Attorney Andrew Seidel, is the Vice President for Communications at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization that challenges threats to the First Amendment. He is also the author of two acclaimed books: The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American and American Crusade: How the Supreme Court is weaponizing Religious Freedom.
—-
Hamas’ brutal attack on Israel on October 7 and Israel’s deadly and sustained military assault on Gaza have had significant consequences in the United States affecting the presidential election and triggering protests and counter-protests at hundreds of college campuses across the country.
It has also presented a serious test for progressive Jews and progressive Jewish organizations in the United States. One of those organizations is Bend the Arc which describes itself as “building a multiracial, multi-ethnic, inter-generational movement of Jews and allies all across the country who are rising up to build an American future free from white supremacy, antisemitism, and racism.” The Bend the Arc family of organizations includes a C3, C4 and a PAC, and in the past, I served as national chair of Bend the Arc’s C3 board and am currently active in its work in the California Chapter.
Until now, Bend the Arc had a strong boundary around working only on domestic economic and racial justice issues. But that all changed on June 4. On that day, Jamie Beran, CEO of Bend the Arc , sent a letter to President Biden. The letter welcomed Biden’s support for a permanent ceasefire plan in Gaza, but quickly added that, “Time and time again, despite your calls to end this violence, you have not followed through with material action. With over one million Palestinian refugees now being forced to flee Rafah, their last guaranteed refuge, thousands of lives lost, and families of captives being fined in Israel for demanding a ceasefire, it is long past time to end U.S. support for these attacks. Now is the moment to make good on your promise to stop providing offensive weapons to the Israeli military.”
Guest – Jamie Beran, is a leader in the Jewish social justice space. Jamie has built justice organizations that embody their values inside and out. She has held many roles at Bend the Arc in her 15-year tenure, including 9 years of executive leadership, most recently as Chief Operating Officer prior to becoming CEO. Prior to joining Bend the Arc, Jamie was the Leadership Development Director for Habonim Dror North America. Jamie holds a BA from Goucher College and is an alumna of UJA Federation’s and Columbia Business School’s Institute for Jewish Executive Leadership. Jamie lives in Central New Jersey with her husband and two children.
—————————————
Law and Disorder July 15, 2024
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Trump v United States
On July 1, the United States Supreme Court handed down one of the most important decisions in the history of our democracy. In the aptly named case of Trump verses United States, the six arch conservative justices awarded the ex-president – who appointed three of them – a vast and complex criminal immunity scheme.
In three ways the majority delivered Trump a tailor made “Stay-Out-of-Jail” trifecta of expanded constitutional protections for Presidents: First, absolute immunity for crimes committed when a President engages in “core” official acts and a near-conclusive presumption of immunity for other official acts; Second, a brand new rule of criminal procedure making a President’s motives irrelevant; and Third, another new rule excluding evidence of a President’s official acts from a criminal trial for his unofficial acts, which prosecutors offer to prove the ex-president’s prior knowledge and intent.
To help us understand exactly what the Court did and its impact not only on the 91 felony charges currently pending against Trump, but the future of the American presidency and our very democracy, we’ve ask one of our very own co-hosts.
Guest – Stephen Rohde practiced constitutional law for almost 50 years. He’s the author of American Words of Freedom, which examines the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. On issues of civil rights, civil liberties and the Americal political system, he is a regular contributor to Truthdig, LA Progressive, Los Angeles Review of Books, and LA Lawyer magazine. This Fall on Ms. Media, he is launching Speaking Freely: A First Amendment Podcast with Stephen Rohde.
—-
The Palestinian Exception To The First Amendment
The resistance organization Palestine Legal, headquartered in Chicago, was created by our own Michael Ratner and others to resist our governments’ practice of what Michael called “the Palestinian exception to the first amendment.“
This exception to the supposedly protected First Amendment activity of speaking out and organizing by Palestinian solidarity activists is carried out by the repression of the US government nationally and locally. It has never been more ferocious than it is now.
However, the mobilization against the Israeli genocide – carried out with total US support – has not been undeterred by peak anti-Palestinian repression. Palestine Legal has been in the vanguard in defending and promoting the rights of people expressing solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza.
Guest – Dima Khalidi, founder and Director of Palestine Legal. Her work includes providing legal advice to activists, engaging in advocacy to protect their rights to speak out for Palestinian rights, and educating activists and the public about the repression of Palestine advocates. Prior to founding Palestine Legal in 2012, Dima worked with the Center for Constitutional Rights as a cooperating attorney on the Mamilla Cemetery Campaign, submitting a Petition to United Nations officials to stop the desecration of an ancient Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem, and advocating on behalf of Palestinian descendants of individuals interred in the cemetery.
———————————–
Law and Disorder July 8, 2024
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Two Very Important Supreme Court Decisions
When does the government cross the line from using its highly visible bully pulpit to advocate for policies and principles it has every right to promote into the prohibited zone of threatening to use its awesome powers to punish viewpoints it opposes by coercing others to refrain from doing business with the speaker.
In two very important recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether it is still the law of the land that a government entity’s “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against a third party “to achieve the suppression” of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment.
In National Rifle Association v. Vullo, in a rare unanimous opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”
But the decision in the related case of Murthy v. Missouri, was not unanimous. In that case a federal district judge had ruled that the U.S. Surgeon General (Vivek Murthy) and other government officials violated the First Amendment by seeking to convince social media platforms to remove content the government deemed disinformation about COVID, the 2020 election and other subjects.
But on June 26, the Court punted. A 6 member majority – made up of both conservatives and liberals – held that the plaintiffs did not have standing. In dissent, three conservative justices said they would have found standing and on the merits they would have found a First Amendment violation.
Guest – Attorney David Cole argued the NRA case in the Supreme Court. He’s been the National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) since 2016. He previously served as a staff attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights. He has litigated a wide array of major civil liberties controversies and has personally argued 8 cases before the US Supreme Court and served as counsel in more than 30.
—-
Abolition Labor: The Fight To End Prison Slavery
Operating in the secrecy of the nation’s more than 1,800 prisons, a kind of shadow slave culture is being fostered. Few Americans are aware of the exploitative and pervasive practice of forced prison labor. The 13th amendment to the US Constitution abolished slavery, but it made one exception: prison labor.
Prisoners are forced to work with minimal or non-existent wages, and often with no labor protections. Understanding the scope and implications of forced prison labor is crucial for anyone concerned with social justice and equity. It calls for a re-examination of our treatment of incarcerated persons and for alternatives that promote fairness for everyone, regardless of their legal status. By shining a light on this issue, we can advocate for reforms that prioritize rehabilitation over punishment and strive towards a more just and humane criminal justice system. A new book, Abolition Labor: The Fight To End Prison Slavery, provides an eye-opening overview of the extent of this problem.
Guest – Andrew Ross is a renowned social activist, author, and Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis at New York University, where he also directs the Prison Research Lab. Andrew has contributed to prominent publications like The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Nation. He has authored or edited over twenty-five books, with the recent work, Abolition Labor, co-authored with Aiyuba Thomas and Tommaso Bardelli.
Guest – Aiyuba Thomas recently earned his M.A. from NYU’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study and is an affiliate of the NYU Prison Research Lab. He currently serves as project manager for the Movements Against Mass Incarceration’s archival oral history project at Columbia University. There, he documents the experiences and challenges faced by those affected by the criminal justice system. His firsthand perspective and his extensive knowledge on the subject makes him a powerful voice in the conversation of abolishing forced prison labor.