For Keeping Up With the World

The Daily and Today Explained

• What they are: Both are daily news podcasts that break down current events in a way that’s easy to follow.
• My take: I listen to these pretty interchangeably. On a good day, I’ll listen to both, but if I don’t have time I just pick whichever episode sounds more interesting. For me, they’re less about enjoyment and more about making sure I know what’s happening.
• Who will like it:  Anyone who wants to stay informed without constantly scrolling the news. Especially good if you’re busy and just want a quick, clear breakdown of one major story.
• Where to start: Just start with today’s episode—that’s the whole point.

For Politics, Culture, and Strong Opinions

In Bed with the Right

• What it is: A podcast analyzing right-wing ideas about gender, sex, and sexuality, and how they still shape politics today.
• My take: This one feels really thoughtful but still engaging. It helps you see how certain ideas have evolved.
• Who will like it: People interested in feminist theory, political ideology or understanding the cultural roots behind modern politics.
• Where to start: The two-part series on Phyllis Schlafly.

5-4

• What it is: A podcast about the Supreme Court of the United States and how political its decisions really are.
• My take: This is basically anger and sarcasm in podcast form. It’s very snarky and opinionated, but also really effective at explaining complicated legal cases.
• Who will like it: Anyone who enjoys political commentary with personality, especially if you like podcasts that are a little blunt.
• Where to start: “Bush v. Gore” – you’ll immediately get the tone.

Diabolical Lies

• What it is: A long-form culture and politics podcast that digs into media, power and the stories we believe.
• My take: This is my favorite podcast right now but it’s definitely not for everyone. It’s slower and really focused on unpacking ideas.
• Who will like it: People who like deep dives into culture and politics, and don’t mind something more thoughtful and less fast-paced with a little (or a lot) of snark. 
• Where to start: If you are more interested in culture I would recommend “Is There a ‘Skinny Apocalypse’ in Hollywood?” If you want more political analyses try  “Why America Can’t See Gaza”

For True Crime 

Crime Junkie

• What it is: A weekly true crime podcast covering everything from missing persons to major cases.
• My take: I think it deserves the hype; it’s easy to follow and consistently interesting. But if you’re only picking one Ashley Flowers podcast, I wouldn’t start here. As much as I love this podcast, International Infamy, is an even better introduction to the world of true crime.
• Who will like it: Anyone new to true crime (or podcasts in general) and are looking for something straightforward and consistently engaging.
• Where to start:  “Infamous: Darlie Routier part 1”

International Infamy

• What it is: Also hosted by Ashley Flowers, this podcast explores infamous crimes from around the world.
• My take: I binged this one. I really enjoyed the global scope, and the fact that it’s short (only 15 episodes) makes it feel very manageable and easy to get.
• Where to start: Honestly, any of the 15 episodes. Since it’s a short series, it’s easy to jump in anywhere and just go from there.

Final Thoughts

If you’re trying to get into podcasts, don’t try to listen to everything at once. Pick based on your mood. The hardest part is just starting—but once you find the right episode, it’s easy to get hooked.

“This is one of the great moments of American history… Today we are taking a giant, bold and important step on the well-trodden path to fulfilling our country’s founding promise. This is a great moment for Judge Jackson, but it is an even greater moment for America as we rise to a more perfect union,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Ketanji Brown Jackson will become the first African American woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court when she is sworn in this summer. Jackson was confirmed with 53 Senators supporting her nomination to the Supreme Court. Of the 53, only three Republicans voted in favor: Mitt Romney (Utah), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine). Jackson has been praised for her legal mind and will undoubtedly add even more legal prowess to the court. 

Jackson’s appointment was not without challenges. She faced stiff opposition from the majority of Senate Republicans. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and Josh Hawley (Mo.) claimed that Jackson was lenient against child abusers. The coalition of Senators claimed that Jackson had given lenient sentences in child pornography cases based on federal statutes. An independent fact-checker has proven those claims false. 

Several Senators, most notably Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), used the hearing as an opportunity to score points back after contentious hearings for President Trump’s Supreme Court appointments. Instead of asking questions that would test Jackson’s legal understanding, they asked her how she would have felt to be treated like other appointees in the past. The behavior of these Senators provided parts of the hearing that came across as jumbled and unorganized.

Before being appointed to the Supreme Court, Jackson attended Harvard Law school and clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer and three other federal judges. Breyer’s retirement created the position she is filling on the Supreme Court. After clerking, Jackson served as a public defender and then as a Federal Trial Court Judge for eight years. Jackson was appointed by Biden to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. in June of 2021. Jackson will be a part of what is expected to be a busy and legally important 2022-2023 cycle set to start in October.

On April 14, Congressional Democrats proposed legislation that would expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices, as opposed to nine – the longstanding standard since 1869. This proposal is the first significant effort to overhaul the Supreme Court since President Roosevelt attempted to expand it in his second term. 

The number of justices on the Supreme Court is established through a Federal Statute, not within the Constitution. According to the House of Representatives Judiciary members, the legislation is an attempt to rectify the actions of judicial appointments made by former President Donald Trump.

“As our country has grown, so should the Supreme Court,” Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), chair of the judiciary committee, stated. “13 justices for 13 circuits is a logical progression.” 

The proposal follows a recent executive order by President Joe Biden that calls for a bipartisan commission to study the Supreme Court and its history, which will include the legality of any proposed changes. The commission will focus on reviewing the current lifetime tenure of Justices and the number of judges allowed to serve. The commission has yet to report its findings. 

As top Congressional leaders in both political parties criticize the proposed legislation, the bill will be facing an uphill battle before it is even considered for a vote.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she supported Biden’s effort to study the history of the Supreme Court but stopped short of supporting the legislation that would expand it. Pelosi told reporters that she had no intention of bringing it to the House floor to be voted on. In October, President Biden was asked about the issue of expanding the Supreme Court and said that he was “not a fan of court-packing.”

Along with criticism within the Democratic Party, the proposal has been universally dismissed by Republicans. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) described the attempt to expand the Supreme Court as a “terrible idea.”

“The stability is what I worry about,” Graham stated. “If they try to expand the court to dilute a conservative majority, the next time Republicans are in power – will we change the number? And you make the Supreme Court basically a political football – it loses its independence, its consistency.”

Graham’s sentiment is not only shared by the Republican party but by some Supreme Court Justices as well.

“It is wrong to think of the Court as another political institution,” Justice Stephen Breyer said during a speech at Harvard Law. “And it is doubly wrong to think of its members as junior league politicians. Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that perception, further eroding that trust.” 

After the announcement of the proposed legislation, Rasmussen – a self-described nonpartisan, independent electronic data company – conducted an independent survey on one thousand voters, finding that 55% of likely voters opposed the expansion of the Supreme Court. Rasmussen conducted a similar survey last fall and found mirrored results: 53% of likely voters opposed the expansion of the Supreme Court.

However, creating term limits for justices appears to be a more popular proposal for any changes to the Supreme Court. In Rasmussen’s fall survey, they found that 52% of likely voters supported term limits for Supreme Court Justices. Similarly, a Reuters poll found that 63% of likely voters from their surveyed population wanted lifetime appointments to end.

The next step in the process depends on if the proposed legislation is accepted to be heard on the House floor. If the measure is not heard, the next step will undoubtedly depend on the recommendation from the bipartisan commission.

Well, that didn’t take long.

The United States has suffered greatly since the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was one of the most ardent defenders of women’s and gay rights. She championed the Obergefell v. Hodges case, which resulted in the legalization of gay marriage. Now, two Supreme Court Justices want to tear it all down.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito issued a statement earlier this week declaring that they wanted to repeal their previous decision on the Obergefell case, therefore stripping the LGBTQ+ community of their right to marry. Their reasoning? In Thomas’ own words, the court’s previous decision “enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”

See the problem here?

The first amendment in the Bill of Rights is often interpreted to require separation of church and state. The line that states this, usually assigned to Thomas Jefferson, is that the establishment clause of the amendment declares that they build a “wall of separation between the church and state.” This prevented one’s religious beliefs from interfering with their ability to serve the American people. This law ought to invalidate Thomas and Alito’s statement. Technically, they are not supposed to consider how any decision they’ve made would impact people’s religious beliefs, unless it specifically infringes on the right of religious liberty.

But guess what? It doesn’t even matter. There will likely never be a time in the American government that church isn’t somehow connected with state. There is a National Prayer Breakfast held in Washington D.C. every year hosted by members of Congress – it really doesn’t get much more obvious than that. The White House is adorned with specifically Christian-oriented decorations during the winter holidays, including multiple Christmas trees. It shouldn’t be shocking anymore that there are religious reasons why people think same-sex marriage is immoral. That right is now in very serious danger.

This address from two Justices is only one more stepping stone on the path to reevaluating the decision that Obergefell represents. Amy Coney Barrett, who President Trump has nominated for the Supreme Court, has been very vocal about her Catholic beliefs. In 2015, she voiced her dissent with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow gay marriage. Should she truly be appointed to the Supreme Court, it’s almost inevitable that the decision will be appealed. Obergefell barely made it last time, scraping by with a 5-4 outcome. Barrett would sway that vote in the opposite direction.

I don’t know how many times the LGBTQ+ community needs to say it for it to sink in: gay rights are not – and should not be – a political issue. Someone’s mere existence should not be perceived as a threat to “religious liberty.” I’m amazed that this is still up for debate in the year 2020. There are bigger fish to fry. Aren’t we still in the middle of a global pandemic? The focus should not be on whether or LGBTQ+ individuals should be legally allowed to declare their love for one another.

All things considered, removing Obergefell invalidates the existence of millions of LGBTQ+ Americans, including those who are already married. There should be no reason at all that LGBTQ+ individuals pose some kind of a threat to those with religious values. By even considering repealing the case, the rights of such a marginalized community will be greatly impacted. Repealing this decision will be a major step backward in the fight for civil rights for all minorities in this country. The LGBTQ+ community is in serious trouble, and something needs to be done about it.