Station Selected:
Following a return to our now-traditional “What Happened Today in (Often Rule
of Law-Related) History,” examination and explanation of the just-issued decision
by the United States Supreme Court, effectively reversing (if only for now) the
findings of lower federal courts removing access to the abortion and miscarriage
drug, mifepristone. Discussion of what is next in this continuing post-Dobbs v.
Reproductive Services debate, including oral argument scheduled for mid-May in
the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court on the merits of the challenge to the Food & Drug
Administration’s safety assessment and medical authorization of 25 years ago.
Then addressing the other, landmark, court-related event of the week—that is, the
12 th hour monetary settlement of the defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion
Voting Machines against Fox News: An exposition of the three, major pretrial
rulings announced by the presiding judge in Delaware—all unfavorable to the
defense against claims of “actual malice” in false reporting that the 2020
Presidential election was “stolen” and that the plaintiff’s voting devices were
responsible for accomplishing nationwide fraud. Accompanying that, some fact-
based speculation on the reasons why Fox News chose to pay nearly $ 800 million
in damages rather than proceed to a jury trial that certainly would have seen the
difficult and deception-revealing testimony of some of its principal broadcasters
and, no less important, its news-directing owner and operator, Rupert Murdoch.
In other significant justice-related developments of the week, updated, additional
understanding about the recently-initiated criminal case against Airman Jack
Teixeira for disclosing classified documents and national security information to
his 50-member, on-line chat group called “Thug Shaker Center”—including the
scheduling results of a mid-week hearing in a Massachusetts federal court. And
prompted by some outstanding questions and comments from many audience
members calling into the discussion, a further examination of the abundant ethics
problems now facing Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence
Thomas—including his conflicts of interest with the public advocacies and
political work of his spouse and, more recently, revelations of his failures to
disclose significant gifts and compensation (both monetary and travel-related)
given to him throughout his tenure on the High Court bench: All of that again
compelling the need for an omnibus ethics code, imposed by the Justices
themselves or the Congress.
[Note: Invoking the recent events in Tennessee and other places of recent gun-
related violence, next week’s broadcast will return to reporting on the health crisis
prompted by firearms use in America—and what we can and should do about that.]
