Claim Ownership#SistersInLaw
Subscribed: 8,560Played: 320,456
Subscribe
© Politicon
Description
Politicon brings the brilliant team of political and legal masterminds together for Politicon's #SistersInLaw.
Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuade, and Kimberly Atkins Stohr will pull back the curtain on how our government actually works, take on the corrupt, share their wisdom and give us their rulings on the latest in politics, law, and culture.
Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuade, and Kimberly Atkins Stohr will pull back the curtain on how our government actually works, take on the corrupt, share their wisdom and give us their rulings on the latest in politics, law, and culture.
225 Episodes
Reverse
Top Podcasts
The Best New Comedy Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best News Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New Business Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New Sports Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New True Crime Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New Joe Rogan Experience Podcast Right Now – June 20The Best New Dan Bongino Show Podcast Right Now – June 20The Best New Mark Levin Podcast – June 2024
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States
Hi ladies absolutely love what you're doing. One comment today Yes, it's important that Chief Justice Roberts commented on Trump's ridiculous claim about judges. The problem is people are not paying attention. there was no schoolhouse Rock lessons in schools during the last decade or two. It was not being taught! I can't tell you how distressed I am at the lack of knowledge of the general public in America. Huge problem 😥
Suggestion: ReSisters t-shirts would be great!
There is some heavy background noise - feedback? - I don't know. High-pitched and distracting, but this episode sounds too good to not put up with it. Thanks for your hard work.
Excellent, if sobering episode!
Barb, did your husband call your phone?
@22:45: That's not where the term "black swan" comes from. It derives from a Latin phrase for an event so rare as to be potentially nonexistent. It wasn't a historical event based on bumbling scientists. The last thing we need is more ignorant podcast hosts spreading lies to undercut trust in trustworthy institutions... but here you gals are, week after week, over-confidently making ignorant claims--especially Joyce and Kim.
@19:52: This was another flippant response. The listener's question about a pardon is not obviated by the fact that a trial could not start before the election. The glib answer overlooks the concern about a potential blanket pardon--as Ford issued for Nixon--that would immunize Trump from prosecution, not merely overturn a verdict.
Joyce's answer about a death b/t election and certification omitted legal citations. Her answer seems both specious and nonsensical. I'll need to look into it more, but procedurally, it seems the secretaries of state for each state would still certify the results of the election, independent of the health of the candidates. After all, we rather stupidly still merely elect *electors* for candidates, not candidates per se. The whole Electoral College system is inconsistent and incoherent.
@15:54: Ugh, Kim never knows what she's talking about. If she can't recall the details, at least don't state them incorrectly. The situation she incorrectly described was prominently at mid-field after the game.
@5:07: "It's no coincidence" that two things coincided? Really?
@56:45: The hosts often hold forth authoritatively despite drastic ignorance. Here, they completely misrepresented the entire issue of a potentially retroactive decision about the illegality of bumpstocks. The reasonable concern would be that someone legally purchased a bumpstock, but then, based on administrative or judicial interpretation, would now be in possession of an item that would require a separate, possessor-specific tax stamp or FFL. Ladies, if you care, learn; otherwise, keep quiet.
Kim often seems to misunderstand others' arguments. She said she disagreed with Jill about Barb's "rule of law" comment in relation to clemecy, but then proceeded to both agree with Jill and disagree with herself about what "respecting the rule of law" would mean in this case. Her arguments often seem fumbled and unclear to me.
Dear Sisters, I take issue with one of the statements about racism/sexism. I am white. I am also 81 years old. For nearly all of those years I have seen racism, including by members of my own family. When I was a little kid, I felt some sexism in my own family. Sexism against me, as a female. It is true that the racism was more overt and the sexism was more subtle. Thanks for reading this. Madeline Holland
EVERY SINGLE THING THAT COMES FROM THE SUPREMELY CORRUPT COURT, EVEN WHEN IT SEEMS TO BE A LOWER LEVEL OF DISGUSTING, IS SELF SERVING IN SOME WAY!! (progressive judges excepted from this comment)
WHO doesn't think that when someone of the "conservative" persuasion says, we don't have enough time" - THEY ARE SAYING... LET'S PUT IT OFF AND HOPE THEY FORGET!!!!!!!
@31:40: Joyce is some sort of Pavlovian imbecile. Even when "Alabama" is mentioned merely in relation to (the likewise imbecillic) Sen. Tubberville, Joyce has to blurt, "Roll tide!" What exactly does that idiot think she's conveying when she does that? It wasn't even about the "University" of Alabama.
Why my most favourite of the ladies 💛💛💛💖 Next year, I have to hop over from Europe to see you and fangirl to pieces 💖
OMG! I worked at the Anchor Bar! In the late 60s. Leo Derderian owned it. A newspaper bar. I was a waitress.
@1:06:26: What an impressively arrogant, self-involved, obnoxious, rude, condescending statement. Kim's request, just prior, was much better stated (i.e., as a matter of efficiency rather than haughty direction). That single statement dropped my regard for Joyce several pegs... and I was already underwhelmed by her legal analyses (which nearly always take the form of restating the question several times over, offering an inane platitude or two, and then saying, "We'll see--Roll Tide!").
omg you WON !!! 🌟♥️🌟♥️🌟