Invoking his delegated authority under Section 2 of the Constitution, the President

In times when a former President raises the specter of pardoning all of the

As indicated, today’s broadcast is also the first of three to examine some of the

On a day when our nation remembers and commemorates the 65th anniversary of

Today’s broadcast also introduced two new topics that will be undertaken and

The search and seizure in early August of some 11,000 documents, including 100

Like virtually every week in the recent history of our nation, the past seven days have been replete with a significant number of important, life- and community-altering decisions by elected and appointed judges. Among those “in the headlines” are directives for the appointment of a special master to review the many documents seized at the office/residence of a former president and for the disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment of a publicly-elected official to serve, based upon his participation in the insurrection of January 6, 2021. Somewhat less well-publicized were the imposition of a huge civil monetary penalty against a major midwestern university for libeling a small commercial bakery adjacent to its campus, the omnibus disposition of the legitimate restitution claims of the victim-survivors and families of the condominium collapse in South Florida some 15 months ago, the Wisconsin-based charging of a defendant who fraudulently assumed the identities of state elected officials in an illegal effort to “prove” voter fraud, and the unconditional dismissal by a federal trial judge of a meritless civil action brought by the former chief executive against other government and political leaders alleging (without foundation) their purposeful intent to damage his reputation. What do these and some ten other court cases of recent days tell us about the diverse and often unpredictable work of our judiciary in addressing and resolving a broad variety of criminal and civil litigation claims?

The genesis, development, and establishment of a Labor Day observance in American in the late 19th Century tells us a lot about the important, historic role of the labor movement, its leadership, and, most important, the workers who animated it. Two recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court involving the dues-based, representative power of labor unions and the rights of employees to be free from discrimination similarly reflect who we are as a nation—as do the accounts of a former local Waukesha alderman in his personal history and public service. [The host of WAUK’s “This Week in Waukesha” joins the conversation as a special on-air guest.] What is important to value and appreciate about the ways in which the so-called “working class” in our nation has been responsible for defining our rights and prerogatives in employment, even amidst past and continuing challenges?

This past week, the United States Justice Department (upon judicial order) released the internal memorandum of March 2019, upon which Attorney General William Barr chose (falsely) to say that the Investigative Report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not describe any obstruction of justice by Former President Trump; it also disclosed the sworn (albeit heaving redacted) affidavit establishing the probable cause for a federal magistrate to conclude that evidence of crimes existed at Trump’s residence/office at Mar-a-Lago, justifying the law enforcement search there. What do these two (related) documents tell us about the past and current criminal behavior of the former Chief Executive in impeding the investigation of Russian interference in the 2020 Election and of his Attorney General is misdescribing the investigative findings about those. And how may we interpret what is now public about the overt disregard of laws and regulations governing the possession, retention, transfer, and use of highly classified government documents and other presidential records by a former chief executive and his staff?

For the first time in the history of the United States, the residence-office of a former President was the target this week of a judicially-authorized warrant for its search and the seizure of documents. The release of the actual court order for that law enforcement action, along with the specific locations to be searched and the particular items to be seized, has provided some insight into the nature and the focus of the work of the United States Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation—even as much about the apparent removal, transport, and retention of classified and other presidential materials remains unknown. What does the Fourth Amendment and federal law generally prescribe about the means and mechanisms for establishing “probable cause” to search, how do judges, prosecutors, and police play roles in that process, and what follows—including inventorying and examining the materials obtained and possible indictments by a federal grand jury presented with evidence of the relevant, material findings?

Both inside and outside our nation’s courts, this week witnessed an important variety of law enforcement events—including the criminal sentencing of a violent January 6 rioter-insurrectionist, the indictment of officers who falsified a search warrant leading to devastatingly tragic results, the imposition of civil monetary judgments on a notorious figure who falsely stated that one of our nation’s most catastrophic school shootings was fabricated, and the rejection by the residents of one of our Midwestern states of a constitutional amendment that would have outlawed abortion services. Our world, our nation, and our state is also rightly focused on the events of August 5, 2012—when a white supremacist gunman killed seven people and injured many others at the Oak Creek Gurdwara; that Wisconsin-based event remains one of the major civil and human rights tragedies in our country’s nearly 250-year history. How might we best digest and sensibly understand these important developments in the justice-related pursuits of our time—while also learning critical lessons and even taking inspiration for change from the profound sacrifices and enduring losses of our fellow citizens?

Resuming a two-broadcast arc of discussions about the application of the First Amendment to public academic settings, a proper examination of the rights and responsibilities of America’s instructors is revealed to be both uncertain and evolving. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that public school administrators may lawfully place some balanced restrictions on student behavior—and perhaps even more limitations on the teachers who guide their in-classroom learning (based on their contractual relationships with the districts that employ them). Even so, an iconic Justice affirmed years ago that teachers, like their students, do not surrender their constitutional rights at schoolhouse gate—and the High Court has recently upheld that foundational principle in a ruling on the religious liberties of a praying coach. As America plans for the re-opening of grade school, secondary school, and university/college campuses nationwide, what is the state of the law in academics—and what does that mean for attempts to ban books or prohibit access to instructional materials in some parts of our country?