The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Daddy's Home

A NATO potentate may—or may not—have said this week that President Trump is the "daddy" of the alliance, but daddy is firmly back in charge here at the 3WHH, as Steve has finally decided to rejoin the American republic after several weeks abroad, during which time John and Lucretia pretty much ran amok. 

After noting that Trump is on a roll, with a sharp argument about whether Trump actually has true prudence in his grand strategy as well as tactical skill (John is skeptical), we get down to the main event: the flurry of big, last-day decisions of the Supreme Court. Beyond the case getting the most attention—limited nationwide injunctions from federal district court judges—the other cases, and this term as a whole, has a unifying theme: Parents Win! (Fitting for an episode entitled "Daddy's Home" don't you think?)

Having now completed the three most consequential years of conservatives jurisprudence in decades, we end with a brief discussion of where constitutional originalism should go from here.  Stay tuned; we take note of sharp and growing divisions among conservative legal thinkers on this issue. 

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The other thing that you have to realize is that
after three or four years of you being on a
podcast here with me, you've come so far.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Oh my god, I'm so glad that's not on tape.

Speaker 3 (00:14):
Whiskey, come and take my pain. They don't. Why think
alone when you can drink it all in with Ricochet's
three Whiskey Happy Hour. Join your bartenders, Steve Hayward, John You,
and the international Woman of Mystery, Lucretia. Where this lap stopping? Livid?

(00:37):
Ain't you easy on the show? Cat's gotta giving whiskey?
All right, listeners, Daddy's back getting in charge from the juveniles.
I left in charge of the podcast like it reminds
me of that old line of p J o'rouric about
giving power to liberals is like giving the car keys
and whiskey to a teenager. So I let you guys

(00:58):
run this show. For the large part, I was gone
and you can see where it went. So I'm back
in charge. It's the three Whiskey Happy Hour. Good morning, everybody.
I've got Lucretia at a disadvantage because she's not quite
awake yet, but there we go.

Speaker 1 (01:10):
I'm awake. I just don't like speaking to people or
have them speak to me before seven am.

Speaker 3 (01:17):
Well, we are far flong again as usual. John's in Washington,
d C. I'm finally back in California after a month
of flouncing about in Scandinavia. And Lucretia is at home
at her undisclosed location in a desert bunker. Right, So right, okay,
all right, well, you know, let's start this way. So, Lucretia,
you had a post on our Political Question site here

(01:39):
earlier the day you thought would provoke both of John
and me, and it didn't provoke me. I actually agreed,
but I didn't really get into it in our recent
podcast where essentially you said, what Trump was the smartest
guy in the room, especially when it comes to the
grand strategy of this whole Middle East scene, and I
think beyond that. So I agree with that, but secondly,
beyond that as a general theme to open up with today,

(02:02):
you know, the whole scene right now with Trump and
the country is in my mind, starting to take on
the same vibe as the nineteen eighties, you know, Morning
in America with Reagan right things everything was starting to
go right at leading force to a forty nine state
landslide in nineteen eighty four. But you know, success briefed,
success and good grief. I look up right now at

(02:23):
where Trump is at the moment, So more wins at
the Supreme Court. That'll be our main subject for today.
NATO calling him daddy. I love that part, calling him
daddy and saying, yeah, we'll spend five percent of GDP
on defense. Almost all European countries said they would do that.
European Union.

Speaker 1 (02:42):
By the way, Steve, they say, do you think the
guy came back and said he didn't actually call him daddy. Yeah,
there's a difference. You know, It's like saying daddy's home.
I forget what it was. He wanted people to know
he wasn't calling him daddy.

Speaker 3 (03:00):
Okay, well, I'm sure you got a lot of blowback
for it. Well, all right, but then the European Union said, yeah,
I guess you're going to have to make some trade
concessions to Trump to get some trade deals right. Harvard
is reportedly trying to negotiate a deal with Trump over
their conflict. CBS News is looking to settle Trump's libel suit.

(03:20):
The Iran bombing looks like a big success.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
BBA fired their president.

Speaker 3 (03:25):
Yeah, I was going to add that that's a big
story that we don't have time to go into details.
But that's and that happened fast, and it's not getting
a lot of press. But the Democrats. Here's the headline
in my mind, the way the Democrats are pushing back
against Governor youngcin and friends of ours who were youngin
has been trying to put on the board of overseers
for the universities. The fact that they're fighting back so

(03:47):
vigorously makes it evident that Democrats understand that universities are
adjunct organizations of the Democratic Party. Nothing could be more
clear than the way they're fighting this. I think it's
unprecedented in Virginia for the political the legs to block
the governor's appointees. Okay, Trump lowered the boom on China,
and at the end of the week the stock market
reached a whole new high. So it could hardly get

(04:09):
any better than that unless it would be passing the big
beautiful bill, which I'm certain is going to pass, if
not by the end of next week, then at least
by the end of the month.

Speaker 1 (04:17):
So with or without all of elizabeths Elizabeth cuts, Elizabeth Cuts,
who's Elizabeth is the the Senate parliamentary and cutting everything
of value out of the big beautiful bill.

Speaker 3 (04:34):
Yeah, well it'll be a moment to see whether they
realize that effect have the power to overrule the parliamentarian.
And so we'll see. But Trump's working the phone's hard,
you know again, you know, Reagan worked the phone's hard
in nineteen eighty one, very hard on behalf of his
tax and budget bills. Other presidents, I think have let

(04:55):
their their advisors and you know, head of this and
that do But think of all the phone calls that
Trump made over the years to get his real estate
deals through. So this is natural to him to be
on the phone twisting arms. And so that's why I
think this thing is going to pass in one form
or another anyway. That's that's sort of my opening is uh,
you know Trump is living a charmed life. Anybody will.

Speaker 2 (05:20):
So your your your daddy, And what me and Lucretia
are Israel and dorn is that right? Is that your comparison?
I just would like to so I'd like to be
Israel in this, of course you would. And fighting against Lucretia,
the religious extremist soon to be armed with nuclear weapons.

(05:44):
So I so, I mean, she's already got all the
conventional weapons one withoud what in the home arsenal, So
the next step up is nuclear, biological or chemical on her. So, look, Steve,
I think I think we should be cautia is not
to be exaggerating how well Trump's doing. I think it
is completely the case that the strategic situation the Middle

(06:07):
East has been changed. But I think that's because of Israel.
We've been helping Israel. Basically, what we did is we
unleashed Israel. I think that's what Trump's insight is. I
don't think Trump right, you know, destroyed Hamas and you know,
crippled Hezbolah and taken out all of Iran's air defenses
to point that it's incredible there's air supremacy over Tehran

(06:29):
for the Israeli Air Force. But it's important to recognize
that past American presidents had kept Israel from doing exactly this,
and so I think this is, you know, to explain
my sense of what Trump has done is that he
is letting the Allies take care of their own business
in the region. So I actually don't think of the

(06:51):
nuclear strikes like a lot of people do or mega
people worry about that's an an increase in American intervention.
Mostly what we've done is armed Israel and let it go,
and let Israel armed with the right values that we
agree with, remake the Middle East. And then we did
the one thing they couldn't, which was drop those gigantic,
massive ordnance penetrators on the newcles. But that's because that

(07:14):
was an art interest. So I wouldn't overstate what. And
there's going to be setbacks, I think because Israel is
a very tiny country and they're fighting much larger countries.
I wish them all the success, and I think they're
going to, you know, hopefully be able to put into
place their wins. I don't think it's because of Trump necessarily.

Speaker 1 (07:36):
And that's the part I disagree with John, the conclusion.
I agree with all of you the facts as you
laid them out. But let me remind you that two
years ago, probably when we would discuss why it would
be appropriate to arm Israel and not the Ukrainians, my

(07:58):
argument always was, never mind the moral issues and so forth,
but that you don't know that we necessarily need to
arm out of our treasury the Israelis. We just need
to provide them with weapons, and we need to give
them the moral authority of the United States to continue
what they're doing, to be on their side. That was
always my argument, and I'm going to say that that's

(08:20):
a little bit of what you just said. But when
you say Trump doesn't deserve that much credit, the point
of my article was all previous presidents listened way too
much to their advisors, to the foreign policy establishment. You
know that you can't have peace unless there's a state
and a two state solution, and you know, all of

(08:41):
these things that prevented them from thinking about the conflicts
in the Middle East in a whole new way. Trump
was willing to do and in that way, and he
was not. This was the underlying theme that was meant
to be a slam mostly at you, John, but a
little Steve, because he's always bringing up these damn stupid

(09:02):
theories international relations. There's game, theory, real is, whatever all
of those are. If you think in those terms, your
thinking is necessarily bounded by the outlines of those theories.
And that's you know, Trump probably does never read an
international relations book in his life, lucky him. But it

(09:23):
also means that he just doesn't buy into those theories,
and that every every single conflict across the world that
the president wants to address or ignore has to be
understood in terms of some foreign relations, some foreign policy
theory that somebody from some stupid think tank came up.

Speaker 2 (09:43):
We know theory just makes the world is trusting effort
to simplify the world, to make it easier to understand
what I don't when I didn't get from your peace,
I think it's fair that you criticize other ways of
thinking about the world. I didn't understand for your piece
how Trump actually makes decisions, Like how does he choose
what's in America's national interest and what's not I can't tell.

(10:04):
And I don't think your piece says what it is.
It just sort of says, well, he's got sort of
common sense, and he looks at the circumstances and he
does something reasonable. But reasonable is just a word for
you know, it's just like a fudgy word that you
can use to say, well, that's you know, you got
to figure out something more than just reasonable. Right, he's decided.

Speaker 1 (10:24):
I don't think you did. I don't think you do
what I think that you can figure out what his
goals are, his goals are America first, America, strong, America,
prosperous economic freedom for people. That's what he wants for America, Patriotism,
all those things. I think that's pretty easy to understand,
the mag of movement and all of that. And then

(10:46):
his vision for the world is we don't control the world.
We even saw that when he went to the Middle
East and talked to you know, those the different countries
and look, I'm not here, I'm not here to tell
to change you and make you like the United States.
You should embrace your your ethnic identity, your national identity.
He wants a world of peace, and he wants to

(11:08):
do what he can with the power of the United
States to pursue that. But he doesn't want to do
it by intervening in the ways that the foreign policy
apparatus has said we should do. Over the last say,
I don't know, since Vietnam probably make the world safe
for democracy, shall we say? I think that that Trump's

(11:28):
it just doesn't fit into a theory because because you're right,
the theories are really there to make the world simpler
to understand. But my problem with them is exactly that
once you simplify things too much, you're not looking at
all the possibilities. You're not looking at all the opportunities
and so on. Sorry, Steve, go ahead.

Speaker 3 (11:46):
So that's right.

Speaker 2 (11:46):
Well, John, I'm a podcast with political theorists who are
against theory. Understand why this is so frustrating.

Speaker 3 (11:53):
No, wait a minute, John, all right, let me first
of all, I just want to register the objection that
usually when I'm bringing up like theory of international relations,
it's to mock them and make fun of them. The
partial exception of game theory I applied to law fair,
not foreign relations. By the way, if you want to
go back and never mind that I'm the one.

Speaker 4 (12:09):
Who does that, yeah, okay, right, but look, John, the
fact that you can't figure out what Trump's decision process
is that is a feature, not a buck.

Speaker 3 (12:19):
And here's what.

Speaker 2 (12:22):
No, no, no, it's not good if you just got
a guy who just thinks he can make important decisions
like dropping huge bombs on people just because of some
instinct instinct. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Well, what is
it then? Well, first of all, I mean, all the
things that Lucretius said are nice slogans that every president
would say they agree with. Look, the question is, how

(12:42):
do you implement it and achieve it. That's what I
didn't understand from the peace, or understand from listening to
Trump and listening to what these mega people work in
his administration say. The words are all the same thing
every president's. Every president wants peace. Every president says their
America first, right, Every president says they're defending our security.
We're not ordering everybody around. But then how they well,

(13:03):
let's let's take a closer look here John, and here I'm.

Speaker 3 (13:07):
I'm pretty strongly four square with Lucrete on this. Let's
go back several weeks.

Speaker 2 (13:13):
For see, your daddy is siding with one child over
the other. I know, yeah, go figure, Yeah, I'm gonna
demand that. Now we go to McDonald's and I get
my mcribs as payback.

Speaker 3 (13:26):
Look here here's the theme here, and then we'll go
to a break and move on to other subjects. Trump
showed extraordinary machiavellian skill over the last several weeks or
several months. So you go back to when net and
Yahoo came to Washington what two months ago, and the
headline was, well, we don't know exactly what they said,

(13:47):
but from the body language and what was said, it
looks like Trump is with holding back Iran or Israel
from attacking Iran, and there's there's a distance between the
US and Israel right now. And then the fact that
Trump did not visit Israel on that trip that Lucretia
referenced was now I think, by the way, that was
all deliberate misinformation deception by US and Israel, because it

(14:10):
has emerged enough details have come out that in fact,
Trump and NETANYAHUO were in very close communication and agreement
as to giving the green light to Israel to attack
and then after the sixty day period to let negotiations
play out, and then so say more about that. But
then the other thing is Trump said, you know, I'm
going to give him two weeks to decide to make peace,

(14:31):
and we now know that he already decided that he
was inclined to use our bunker busters to strike before
the two weeks was up. He sent the B two
planes westward to Guam as a faint, which I think
was also a signal to Chinese. But never mind that
for the moment sending carrier strike groups and then suddenly

(14:52):
we wake up and discover, oh, he didn't wait for
two weeks after all, he went and did it, and
once again we know that he was in close communication
with that Yahoo. They were putting out more disinformation to
deceive everybody about this. That to me shows some real
Machiavellian skill on Trump's part.

Speaker 2 (15:10):
And you know, the tactics not in strategy.

Speaker 3 (15:13):
That's all.

Speaker 2 (15:13):
I love it too. Once you decide to carry out
the strike, all that was great. But that's different than
how does he make you know what to do and.

Speaker 3 (15:22):
Not do well.

Speaker 2 (15:23):
I'll just say that I would say, once he does it,
our military has no power or equal in the world,
and carrying it.

Speaker 1 (15:29):
I think it's because you refuse to believe the simple things. John.
He doesn't want to around to have a nuclear weapon.
That's the strategy. The tactics get him there. The strategy,
how do we prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon
without causing World War three? How do we support Israel
and make sure that they can.

Speaker 2 (15:50):
Here's the thing that his side is not that. The
MAGA people all upset with, right, They're saying, why is
it our view that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon
and that we have to stop them? No, No, I
don't agree with this. I don't agree with this.

Speaker 3 (16:05):
At all.

Speaker 2 (16:05):
But I'm reading our friends many of them are angry.

Speaker 1 (16:08):
No, they're not as angry as they were because they
said for sure this was going to start World War three,
and now they of course have egg on their face.
I do believe that there is a huge element, I'm sorry,
of anti Semitism on the right that drives much of
this anti Israel thing. If you cannot see how Israel
is a force for peace in the Middle East and

(16:30):
by extension, in the world, you're just not You're you're
not paying attention, You're not worth It's kind of like
what I know, we'll get to it, but I'll bring
it up and do my manaculpos. It's kind of like
Amy saying to Kaitanji, you're not We're not even going
to address your stupid ass opinion.

Speaker 3 (16:51):
Well, look, I think, first of all, John, I think
it's not true that maga world is upset with this.
There are certain voices that are like Tucker Carlson, who,
if you pay it tension, Trump has kind of kicked
to the curb right pretty directly. I take one example.
A good representative example is my pal Dan McCarthy, who
is no anti Semite. By the way, but he's a

(17:12):
very strong anti interventionist, and he was saying, no, Trump
shouldn't do anything to help israel Is, Well, can do
it by themselves. We should stay out of it. He
shouldn't drop a single bomb. Well, he's turned on a dime.
And that's because he recognizes that. As Walter Russell meet
puts it in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend,
this is Jacksonian foreign policy. This is Jacksonian move by Trump.

(17:33):
And Dan said, yep, that's right. And so I think
you're seeing a lot of the thoughtful skeptics of American
involvement have come around, and the polls show this. I mean,
there have been polls of sort of maga Republicans and
it's like eighty percent support for what he did. So
it's a minority fringe, some with I think bad motives,
some the sort of libertarians who don't want us to
even police our borders, right, but as a whole, I

(17:55):
think Oh. And the final point would be, even if
you thought that this was an opening to possible American
involvement in the Middle East, again, ask yourself this question.
Would Trump sign off on building a seven hundred million
dollar embassy complex like the Bush and Obama administrations did
for Afghanistan, or a billion dollar embassy complex for Baghdad

(18:16):
which the Bush and Obama administration signed off on. The
answer to that is obvious. That was never going to happen.
There was never going to be nation building or direct
regime change from Trump. And so I don't know why
people have got their nickers in a twist about it.

Speaker 2 (18:29):
I just want to welcome you both to the neo conclict.

Speaker 4 (18:33):
No, that's well, you remember in last week, in last
week's episode, we were unanimous saying, yeah, you know Trump
ought to do this, and you know you were blaming
victory then.

Speaker 2 (18:46):
But neo conflict, our neo cons are. You're the ones
who are plauding and giving compass standing ovations.

Speaker 1 (18:53):
So the quintessential neo con by the way, last week
on on X posted, I am I'm to the point
of that, I'm anti anti what's that idiot's name, b
Babon whatever, his stupid name is. William Crystal, the ultimate

(19:14):
Neil con is now not he's he's shattered.

Speaker 3 (19:21):
I call him shattered Crystal a right, But well, you
know the commentary magazine crowd, which is usually pretty hard
on Trump, boy, are they really liking him now, which
I think is so. I mean, Crystal is hopeless. But
and speaking of hopeless, we can go on forever, but
I think we need to take our first break for
a sponsor, and then we'll come back and get to

(19:42):
our main subject, recapping the end of this very climactic
Supreme Court term. So don't go away, listeners will be
right back. Okay, we are back now to turn to
the main event of which we have the most expertise.
It's the end of the Supreme Court. Several cases released

(20:03):
in a batch here at the end of the week.
I think the biggest one was striking down the universal
injunctions for the most part. We'll talk about the caveats there,
but a couple other wins I think, and I don't know.
Let's start with you, John. I'm going to say for Lucretia,
recapping Barrett's SmackDown of Jackson, because that was fabulous. But

(20:24):
so what do you say about the decision and what
are the limitations or caveats we should take from a
more close reading of it.

Speaker 2 (20:32):
The decision involves an issue, a legal issue which is
of average importance in the law, even and I doubt
we'll be discussed much within a year and may fade away.
It's just that has enormous political consequences because it is
that procedural issue that has allowed any one district judge

(20:53):
in a country that has I think about seven hundred
active district judges and another one hundred or two senior
judges who also can hear case is from stopping the
elected president's legal agenda throughout the country for quite some
time if he wants. The legal issue is It's interesting.
I wrote Argle about this law thirty years ago. I

(21:14):
find it really interesting, but I don't think it's that
important in the grand scheme of things, certainly not as
important as birthright citizenship. And that's the question. Does a
court excuse me, have the power under Article three of
the Constitution, or is authorized by statute to give relief
to issue decisions that go beyond the parties before the court?

(21:38):
And Justice Barrett shows and this is what we were
talking about before. Courts just didn't understand that to be
their power. At the time of the founding thin It's
pretty easy. There were no such things as nationwide in junctions.
The power of the courts then, as you decide the
case they're controversy. That's the phrasing the Article three of
the Constitution, and that means pointiff wins, defendant loses, or
vice versa. And then you give relief to those parties.

(22:01):
You don't then say, and therefore, not only do I
order the state department to give this person a passport,
I order every the state department to give everyone in
the country who's not before me who's qualifies for a passport.
That was the abuse of powerful, very simple, straightforward. Yeah,
that's I mean. The legal issue was really boring and

(22:22):
simple and obvious. It's obvious it was going to come
out to it. The political issue, of course is and
this we'll get to, what's you know, the political you
know issue is how do you reconcile a limited judiciary
with an elected president. I think they didn't cite him,
as far as I know, I looked at the major opinion.
I didn't see them cited. But this is really also

(22:44):
I think, a nod to Lincoln's theory of how you
deal with the Supreme Court.

Speaker 3 (22:49):
Right.

Speaker 2 (22:49):
They adopted essentially the dread Scott. Lincoln's approach to dred Scott.
Remember that he said, I will hand the slave back
in dred Scott back to the owner when the Supreme
Court say, you hand dred Scott back. But I'm not
going to then go ahead and find all the other
people like dred Scott and hand them back to their
owners unless the courts ordered me, one by one, case

(23:10):
by case to do it.

Speaker 3 (23:11):
Well, I had saved that question for Lucretia. But glad
to see you come around to our point of view, John, because.

Speaker 2 (23:16):
Well, in your point of view, in my point of view, well.

Speaker 3 (23:20):
I found an old article of yours from like ten
to fifteen years ago where I thought you completely botched
the question. But I'll find it a minute, Lucretia. I mean,
what do you want to add to what John said?

Speaker 1 (23:28):
I would just argue that I do agree with that,
but I agree with your take about it being Lincoln's
approach to the dread Scott issue, because dread Scott got
it so wrong, and this is actually a restatement of
what we understood Marshall to do. My piece in Civitas
reminded everybody who's, oh, Marshall said that, you know, the

(23:51):
court gets to say everything. No, Marshall did not. He
did say that it is the province and duty of
the judicial department to say what the law is, but
the practice of judicial review in the case of Marbury
versus Madison, where Marshall overturned a law, portion of a
law passed by Congress dealt only with the court's own powers.

(24:14):
And I think that that's a really critical point. It's
not anti Lincoln, but Lincoln just said the country should
not necessarily accept this notion that all slaves an you
know everything about dread Scott. I won't go into it.
But also Lincoln wasn't president at the time, and so

(24:34):
Lincoln wasn't not necessarily concentrated on the argument, which I
totally agree with him on this that the people should
not accept as a binding precedent for the whole country
a decision by that imminent tribunal, because then they've they've
handed over their republic. What's important about Amy's decision here

(24:55):
is that this is about who gets to decide their
own powers, right, And she made that very you know,
scathing comment to Katji, you're worried about an imperial executive,
what about an imperial judiciary? This is not the judiciary's role.
And if you're worried, that was the only thing I

(25:17):
didn't really like about it. There was a hint at
the idea that maybe the courts would need to step
in and do something about a president. I don't even
think the Supreme Court should have the power to do that,
but we don't have to get into that now. Anyway.
My point is is that Marshall's opinion in Marbury was
so misused in dred Scott. They didn't listen to Lincoln.
You've made that point many times, and very well, John,

(25:40):
they didn't listen to Lincoln. And it has been downhill
for the Supreme Court ever since. This is this, this
whole session of the Court might be the tiniest step
on trying to ratchet that back a little bit. And
of course, you know, it's the end of the world
as we know it if the Supreme Court can't, you know,
give transsexuals children the right. Anyway, I'm done, Steve, you

(26:05):
go ahead.

Speaker 2 (26:06):
I let me just throw one other thing about the descent,
because the descent is really notable for being over the top, right,
because if the legal issue is sort of a modest one,
as we described this is this is not justified saying
what Justice Jackson said, which is the rule of law
is ending this is a you know, dictatorial powers in

(26:27):
the hands of a president and so on and so forth.
As I think Justice Barrett rightly said, oh gosh, the
republic seemed to function pretty well into the first nationwide
injunctions really started to get going in you know, the
two thousands. In fact, you might say the country was
better off before there were nationwide injunctions than after. And
so I think she was fully deserving of the SmackDown.

(26:49):
But let me give some you know, there is some
support for the descent, but I think it's easily handled.
The descents. Real worries should just be that you're going
to have right passports given out in Massachusetts to illegally
children of illegal aliens, but in Texas perhaps you won't.
And so you have federal law being a ministered very
differently all across the country. That is, you know, that

(27:12):
is undesirable. And so what's going to have to happen is.

Speaker 1 (27:16):
That this I just had just a question about that
before you go, and I didn't mean but you could
have that, but I mean technically the even in the
state where it was three states that brought this this
suit right challenging the executive order about birthright citizenship for

(27:38):
things like passports. Three states, So that doesn't even the
district court opinion should be limited, not should be limited
just to those parties who were then before the court. Right,
it doesn't make in that district a permanent injunction against
the president's executive order? Am I making sense? Just what

(27:59):
I'm asking?

Speaker 2 (28:00):
But yeah, so the but you can tell in that
district every judge will then start issuing the passports because
that's the rule in that district. Actually, there's an interesting
question about whether states should even be allowed to sue
the way you've been doing and claiming we're representing everyone
in Massachusetts. I'm not sure that's permissible too. But the

(28:21):
thing is that you're going to have different rules throughout
the country and something is important as who's a member
of the we the people and who are not. But
that happens all the time. That's the thing where the again,
the descent is over the top. We always have cases
where federal law is interpreted differently. That's why we have
appeals courts, and that's why we have a Supreme Court.
So what it really means is that and this will

(28:42):
be interesting because what people said, yes and this decision
expands the power of the presidency, or I would just
say restores it. But what it also does, what people
have not noticed, is that it dramatically expands the power
of the Supreme Court over the rest of the judiciary,
because now the Supreme Court is going to grab cases
earlier and earlier out of the hands right of Chriald

(29:03):
judges and Peel can accelerate them to the Supreme Court,
so they can decide something like birthright systemship And that's
a good thing. Well, they have to, because you don't
want passports given out to a versus b throughout the country.
That's the only thing you can do. Now, I think
that's I think that's a better thing than having, you know,
six district judges decide the issue differently all around the country.

(29:26):
I think that's a poltry.

Speaker 3 (29:28):
Yeah, yeah, I mean you mentioned John of some question
about whether states can bring these kinds of lawsuits. I'm
having flashbacks to Chisholm versus Georgia. I mean, you know,
long ago case nobody right. So it's kind of reverse
of all that. But look, there was also an addition
to the question of can states bring these actions on
behalf of all of its citizens. There was also it

(29:50):
Section twenty three or rule twenty three. Essentially there's still
maybe the doors open a crack for certifying class actions
in some of these And so you know, well, now
these district judges are gonna First of all, lefty lawyers
will go to district judges and say this is a
class action case, and lefty judges will say, yeah, I listen.

Speaker 2 (30:11):
I listened to your discussion of this with Charlie Cook
on Ricochet this morning. And this is why you should
never let people practice law without a license. Because neither
of you guys knew what the all you were talking about.

Speaker 3 (30:25):
Well, that's why we're popping.

Speaker 2 (30:27):
At least no, no, no, but at least the good
thing was you both prefaced it. But with I have
no idea what I'm talking about. But let me now
explain real twenty three of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
What the hell are you guys doing? Well, so that
that is true, Justice Alito writes a concurrence saying real.
So when charlieps saying real twenty three, that's the rule
that creates the class action or recognizes it. Class actions

(30:50):
are very hard to get. But the other thing that
it's slow. It's really slow, so that yes, you could,
you could still get class actions. A lot of these
might not be you know, these kind of issues are
not preferable for or suited for class actions. But it
takes a lot of time to get a class action.
So if you're an opponent at Trump, yeah you could

(31:11):
go down the class action route, but it's still better.
You'll still do You'll get the issue faster to the court,
which is what you should want by just filing individual
separate actions and trying to get them to conflict.

Speaker 3 (31:26):
All right, John, I said earlier that you came around
to our point of view about Lincoln. Here's why I'm
saying that. I found your article from the Vermont Law
Review from I don't know fifteen years ago, called Lincoln.

Speaker 2 (31:36):
At Lincoln at War is a great piece.

Speaker 3 (31:39):
Well, except in your first paragraph. You say this in
the text, and then I want to refer to the footnote.
On November nineteen, eighteen sixty three, Lincoln gave the Gettysburg
Address and turned the Constitution's mission toward popular sovereignty. Footnote
Abraham Lincoln Address. On this point, see Harry v. JAFFA

(32:00):
New Birth of Freedom Abraham Lincoln the coming of the
Civil War. I think that's a been haigges.

Speaker 2 (32:04):
Aren't you happy? Aren't you be happy and rolling like
a pagan mud over that?

Speaker 3 (32:09):
No? No, no, because you.

Speaker 2 (32:11):
Have just what I think you were doing in Norway
and Scandinavia the last four weeks, because that's the only
way they have fun up there.

Speaker 3 (32:16):
You had it exactly backwards there. John Lincoln was dedicated
to criticizing and pointing out the limits of popular sovereignty.
You just came on unwittingly. I think the Douglas point.
Am I being too harsh? Lucretia on that?

Speaker 1 (32:29):
I haven't read his piece.

Speaker 2 (32:30):
I'm talking about popular sovereignty in the way we talk
about it in constitutional in the real way, which is
really just democracy. It's not popular sovereignty. I'm not talking
abound the way Douglas talked about it. Yeah, the peace. Yeah,
we don't talk about it something else.

Speaker 1 (32:45):
It's actually something really important. I'll break in and say that,
because I do think it's important. The whole concept of
popular sovereignties is exactly what this country's built upon. It
was a sleight of hand of Douglas to call what
he said was, you know, leaving the question of voting
slavery up or down to the territories themselves, and calling
that this is the essence of popular sovereignty. I mean,

(33:07):
it was a subtle argument Lincoln had to bring to
bear in order to prove that Douglas was wrong about that.
You see that kind of thing. This is why I
went off on the tangent, Steve. The interesting thing is
you see that all the time these days you heard
you said it yourself, John, that Kittinji talked about how
this was the end of the rule of law. Schumer

(33:28):
talked about how this was the end of the rule
of law. Those important concepts that form the very basis
of our foundational the foundations of our constitutional republic are
misused by people who don't understand them, and the demagogues
in our society all of the time. And Douglas was
one of the first to misuse the our democracy trademark.

(33:52):
You know. So it's just and you know, we could
go into for days talk about the reasons that they
get away with that kind of nonsense. But my point
is is that if Steve is correct, John, I will
tell you that because that term figures so prominently in
the whole Antebellum period and Lincoln's fight against the extension

(34:14):
of slavery. You probably needed to be more specific, but
since I have not read the article, I won't even
accuse you of that.

Speaker 2 (34:20):
So there, daddy, there.

Speaker 3 (34:24):
All right, let's take another quick break.

Speaker 2 (34:26):
Daddy, go back on your daddy, go back on your
business trip. We don't need you here at home.

Speaker 3 (34:31):
Well, no, I won't do a travel off, although I'm
sorely tempted. Let's take another quick break for a sponsor,
and then quickly touch on a couple of the other
cases decided that I think were important to getting skipped over.
So we'll be right back. Everybody. All right, we're back
with I think I need to mention some of the

(34:51):
other cases quickly. But there were four or five other
important cases this week. One Supreme Court upheld the Texas law,
saying that they can require the Internet service providers to
verify people's addressed access porn, and of course everybody's going crazy.
This is a violation's First Amendment. I don't think so.

(35:12):
A separate ruling saying indeed states can restrict medicare access.
The other one was out of Maryland, the parental rights
case saying parents absolutely have the right to withdraw their
kids from the public schools when you're gonna have the
LGBTQ curriculum, and that's upsetting everybody on the left. I
think maybe the you guys can pick any one of

(35:34):
those if you want to say something. Well, before we
go on, well, one more case. I want to mention
it's I think the only possible loss. But I haven't
read the case yet. Was the case John that it
was a non delegation consumers research, consumer's research. I can
talk about that.

Speaker 2 (35:49):
They are actually two important administrative law cases. I could
talk about that. Okay, we'll do that, but not as
important remotely as the other ones.

Speaker 3 (35:55):
Yeah right, Okay, Lucretia, you wanted to pick up something
from one of those other three.

Speaker 1 (35:59):
K Well, let me just say first of all that
both the parents rights case call it and the porn
case it actually I find it. I find it almost
appalling that issues like that actually had to go to
the Supreme Court. I mean, really, have we gone so

(36:20):
far that we can't say that parents in public schools
cannot say I don't want my kids to be taught that.
And it's almost as if when you read it was
Sodomayor who wrote one of the dissenses I recall. I
think it's almost as if they are incapable of any

(36:40):
kind of discernment when it comes to every argument they
make is a thin end of the wedge argument. I
guess you could say, and that children should be protected
from seeing, you know, from books that celebrate transsexualism and
so on, is so common sense. And but but you know,

(37:04):
Kagan my or Kitty Aingie will immediately turn this into
mass censorship. Yeah, and I know that John schooled us
a couple of weeks ago about that's how lawyers think,
what are the limits to these things? And maybe that's
what's wrong with having every single one of these questions
go to the judiciary. If that makes sense, it.

Speaker 3 (37:24):
Might well, well yeah, I mean I think I think
of this not so much in legal terms, but in
cultural political ones.

Speaker 2 (37:32):
It is.

Speaker 3 (37:34):
That's all right, Well, I was just going to say that,
look that what's behind us is the impulse of the
left that the children do not belong to families, they
belong to the collective.

Speaker 2 (37:42):
Right.

Speaker 3 (37:42):
It takes a village. I mean, that's the soft version
from Hillary, but the hard version of people saying no, No,
the kids have to be instructed in these things because
you can't trust the parents to do it. So it's
it's much more sort of deeper and serious and more
problematic than just the legal treatment of it.

Speaker 2 (37:58):
But John, so, guys, one so two points. One that
you know, every time they are these ends of year,
end of term wrap up stories about what did the
term mean? I think people are missing it because they're
so focused on nation wid injunctions. The real story of
the term as families wine, Grimmti right, scrimtti parents. You know, kids,

(38:21):
kids can't decide for themselves that they want to change
their genders, and the state is allowed to protect kids
from online pornography. And then right the other case. So
about so you have these three pieces which are all
pro families. So that's the thing. But I think the
interesting constitutional issue, which I want to ask you guys
about what you think, is this is a classic case

(38:45):
of bringing in political theory from outside the constitution into
the constitution because there is no provision in the constitution
that says, right that you have to respect families. I
am glad that the courts do right. There are these
cases are peers versus society of sisters and so on,
where all these cases we're talking about today trace their

(39:06):
origins to. But that's not in the text of the
Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Talks about protecting individual liberties,
it doesn't talk about protecting families. So you guys should
be super super happy because they are drawing in natural
rights concepts. But let me ask, why is it that
natural rights protects families and gives them the sort of

(39:27):
same status, actually not same superior status to a natural
right like free speech.

Speaker 1 (39:34):
Let me just let me give Steve a shout out.
Steve's the one who often wants to put more more
credence in the idea that our constitution is based on
common law than I do. But in this particular case,
of course, you have you have all of recorded history
up until the Communists came along that understood how absolutely

(39:56):
critical the family was to the success of a police regime.
And again it would take it would take a lesson
from Aristotle, right Steve, in order to carry this out fully,
which we're not going to do today, but that you
could even challenge it is really simply as it's communism

(40:18):
and progressivism being the ideas behind it becoming so forceful
in our society that we have to fight back with
something that somebody would never have challenged even one hundred
and fifty years ago. I mean, it's just all of
human history is understood that the family is a basing,
basic building block of any society, and that children belong

(40:41):
to their parents. They do not belong to the state.
And the choice about how to how to raise a
child it's always been understood to be the parent's decision.
When the state had to intervene. Where on the margins right,
the parents are abusing the child, the parents, whatever it

(41:01):
might be, the parents are taking them into a cult.
Those kinds of things bring up questions nobody ever questioned
until the Communists came along. You and I talked about this, John,
when we didn't have Steve. The Communists came along and
understood that.

Speaker 2 (41:15):
If you daddy was oh yeah.

Speaker 1 (41:18):
When we didn't have Daddy, when they understood if you
wanted to remake completely remake society, you had to start
by destroying the family. Yes, and and my point is this, John,
to ask the question is is to put in stark
relief the fact that the question could even be asked,

(41:38):
Whereas it's you know, Aristotle lays it out for us.
And we've always understood Aristotle to be absolutely right because
it his view about the family dovetails perfectly, not just
with common sense, but with all of recorded human history
until until Marx came along and said, you need to
destroy that if you want to rebuild society. So there

(41:59):
you go, Steve, you can do better than that.

Speaker 3 (42:01):
No, that's fine, I think at the interest of time
and a couple other broader points, John, let's move on
to the Consumers Research case, which I have a footnote
for you. We have time on non delegation and you
said a couple other admin decisions.

Speaker 2 (42:16):
Yeah, so there's actually two. Okay, No, so there's there's two.
There's consumers Research and then there's another one involving something
called the Public Health Board, which decides on certain kinds
of treat I think, treatments that are covered by government,
you know, government medicare, medicaid. So that interesting thing is

(42:36):
in both cases the principle that conservatives have been fighting for,
in the first case, non delegation doctrine. In the second case,
the Humphreys executive issue firing firing subordinate executive officials. Both one,
but they're disappointing to conservatives because in application, uh, the

(42:57):
liberals managed to convince a conservative here there to uphold
what the government did. So in consumer's research we talked
about I think this is the case where the FCC
sticks that tax on all of our phone bills at
the bottom. Right at the bottom of your phone bill,
you'll see this tiny universal charge. And the lower court,
the Fifth Circuit Texas, I thought, quite reasonably said Congress

(43:19):
cannot delegate to an agency the power to impose a tax.
If there's anything Congress has to do, it's set taxes.
The court said, Justice Kagive werthe the opinion, So of
course you should be suspicious. But she said, we agree
there's a non delegation doctrine. We just don't think it's
violated here. We don't think this is really a tax.

(43:40):
It's just like a user fee, and the agencies can
impose that they always have. Yeah, so that was a
missed opportunity. But on the other hand, you now have
many many I think all the justices now have to
agree that there is a non delegation doctrine, and there
are you know, ten years ago the liberal justices would say, oh,
that's some creature product of the New Deal Court that

(44:02):
opposed FDR, but they missed their chance. The other case,
the Public Health Board. This is very interesting. Everyone admitted
that this board was in the executive branch. Everyone also
admitted Congress said this board is an independent board, but
so everyone admitted it's an executive branch agency the exercise

(44:24):
delegated power. The president must be able to fire everybody.
The statute was then read by the Court in a
very creative way to say the president can fire everybody.
So they had a chance to overturn Humphrey's executor in
this case, they but they did not. They passed on it.
But very interesting. Justice Kavanaugh is probably the fifth vote

(44:48):
on an extending Humphreys overturning Humphrey's executive. He wrote a
very interesting concurrence which no one's talking about, where he said,
if an agency exercises delegated power from Congress, it cannot
be independent from the president. So if that's true, Humphreys
executor is really dead because what he's saying is there

(45:08):
can't really be an independent agency that has any real
power at all. So I think actually reading these two decisions,
the left should be really upset. But they're so focused
on right nationwide injunction. Let me ask a question of
John that's happening.

Speaker 1 (45:22):
Yeah, So, John, do you believe that the that those
both of those decisions ended up being a little less
astounding than they might have been because Roberts is kind
of reeling from the fact that so many of his
decisions have gone the way of shall we call it
the right? In this last because you and I have

(45:43):
had conversations many times about Roberts and his balancing act.
It is, you know, Amy wrote this thing. Amy's been
you know, vilified in the right wing media for.

Speaker 2 (45:58):
You know, didn't we say on the podcast, those are
all little cases. When that big issue comes up, she's
going to y, yeah, you and you didn't attack me.
So I took that as agreement sort of they're.

Speaker 3 (46:11):
Waiting, sorry interrupt, I think they're waiting for a better
case too.

Speaker 2 (46:14):
Explicitly, Yeah, I think I think in both cases. And
also I think, uh, this might be actually a case
where the nationwide in junction thing became so important and
so focused. I could see Roberts saying this is not
the right year to use up a lot of political
capital on striking down a dedication returning Humphreys executive I
don't think I don't think a lot of you know that. Thomas,

(46:38):
Alito and Gorsa you think that way, But I think
Roberts and Kavanaugh think that way unfortunately, And I think
you see it here.

Speaker 1 (46:45):
Yeah, you know, I'm going to give Roberts a shout
out on this one. To be honest.

Speaker 2 (46:51):
Wait wait, wait, everybody turn your Apple iPhone recording function on.

Speaker 1 (46:57):
As much as it aspies that concept about, you know,
balancing the political impact of the Court's decisions in the
national arena. If the Court is going to be so
critically important in all of these major political controversies, and
if the Court's power to do that relies upon a

(47:20):
certain level of trust confidence in the American people in
making those decisions, I don't think that's how it ought
to be, by the way, but it is that way.
We turn every important question now in our national political
arena over to the Court, And if that's going to
be the case, then Robert is Roberts is more or

(47:41):
less obligated to do a little bit of that balancing.
Does that make sense what I'm trying to say, guys,
I mean, I don't think the Court should be deciding
every single political controversy and turning it in somehow into
this tiny little legal issue that they can pretend really
covers at all. They shouldn't be deciding it. I mean,

(48:03):
in my opinion, I won't go into examples, but if
you're going to do that, if the court is going
to be profoundly political, then it has to be a
little bit careful.

Speaker 2 (48:16):
The other thing I would just add on to the well,
I would add on to Lucretia also that there's a
bigger thing going on is that if you look at
the last five years, this is probably the most successful
conservative Supreme Court in the history of the republic. Right.
Not only they do three decisions today making clear the
right of families overcomes other rights like free speech or

(48:40):
the right of the government to run education, they also
overturned Dobbs, expanded gun rights, got rid of affirmative I mean,
this is like a winning streak like we've never seen
before for conservatives. Maybe not since you know, they struck
down the first New Deal. It's just that they went
out on that. So maybe the reason I says by
Lucretia is maybe in order to make sure this these
wins are more permanent than the Court of nineteen thirty

(49:03):
five or nineteen thirty is that you have to you know,
hedge and you know, sometimes not decide all the issues
at once to understand the political systems, you don't trigger
a response. I think that's the best case to make
on Roberts's part, that even if you're conservative, you can
only do so many conservative things at once, and they've
done an unbelievable number of them in the last five years.

(49:23):
It's like it's like a dream you know, a dream
team of what I mean, like a wish list of
what they've actually done. There's the conservatives are running out
of stuff they want.

Speaker 3 (49:33):
Right Well, our next segment, we're going to press that
question a little bit further on broad grounds. Let's get
out with sorry.

Speaker 1 (49:41):
Well, I just want to I do want to say
one thing that you guys will remember before we go
on to the originalism. Then you guys will remember when
I guess it was probably the eighties into the nineties
that we would talk about judicial activism and judicial restraint
as if they were morally politically neutral terms, and so

(50:04):
you know, we don't hear very much. But then when
there started to be the tiniest, tiniest little break in
the dam of liberal decision making, an expansion of power
by the courts, and the idea that you would, for instance,
overturn well Roe versus Weight. I'll use that as the example.
Overturning Roe versus Weight is not judicial activism, it is

(50:25):
judicial restraint. Right, But those terms are nowadays meaningless. But
I would argue John that the reason I can applaud
so many of these decisions by the Roberts courts. Okay,
oh God again, I'm going to say something nice about
Roberts is he does understand to a great extent that
the courts I don't think it fully understands it, but

(50:48):
I still have problems. But he understands that there's not
that reigning in the power of the courts itself is
important to maintaining the court's integrity in our system, and
I think many of the decisions can be understood in
that way. They are overturning or reconfiguring older decisions that

(51:10):
gave the court way too much power. Is that unfair?
But the left doesn't like it because the left wants
the court to be in their pocket, and they don't.

Speaker 2 (51:21):
They want it to be an engine of social change. Yes,
they wanted to be an engine of social change that
makes every kind of process generally stops them.

Speaker 3 (51:29):
Yes, all right, well let's get out and come back
to this after Well, let me let me do just
a little historical footnote because I think it's fun. So
the case on the first case, the Consumer's Research case,
Consumers Research is now owned by rumbroll. Please Leonard Leo,
I think.

Speaker 2 (51:47):
Did not know that, John, No, I did not know that.

Speaker 3 (51:49):
Well, so here's the funny thing.

Speaker 2 (51:51):
I thought they were like the guys who put out
consumer reports. I was like, I know what this has
to do with what's the best what's the best mini
van for twenty twenty seven?

Speaker 3 (52:00):
No, no, see that. That's why it's an interesting story.
I tell the whole story in my biography of Stan
Evans about Consumer's Research. It was a magazine started in
the thirties by lefties, by the New Republic crowd and
by degrees. Is a long story that I have in
my book, but it got It was one of the
only organizations and publications that moved to the right and
explicitly became an alternative to Consumer Reports, which became very

(52:22):
natorite in the seventies, right, and by degrees, my old mentor,
Stan Evans became publisher and editor of it, and then
it declined as magazines did, and Stan retired and later died,
and somehow Leonard Leo ended up acquiring it. So you
know what they've done by not deciding the case the
way I think Leonard wont it was making mad which
I kind of like. Anyway, No, it did do that, John,

(52:44):
but it was if you go back and look at
old episodes of old issues, which I have a few,
it was very much a right wing consumer magazine which
has made a lot of fun. So there you go.
But we're going to take a quick break and come back,
and we're gonna press this originalism question just one more
step and then we'll have to get out for the day,

(53:06):
all right. I don't want to press this originalism question
just a little further because a week after Scurmetti, which
everyone celebrated for its outcome, there are people who like
friends of ours, like Haley Arcis, but certainly not him alone, saying,
oh wait a minute, Robert's opinion is based on the
narrowest ground of the stupid rational basis test or what

(53:26):
Scalia used to call the babbling idiot's test and frustration
that we're not. I mean, you did mention John that
families win and that's good and that that is imported
from the logic of the Constitution and not the plain,
black and white text of it. But the argument is,
you know, maybe we should expect better, maybe we should
now be even more aggressive about pushing a natural law

(53:48):
originalism and you know, surfacing Thomas's point of view more directly.
So just very quick comments from both of you on
that if you have any lucreatia, you had your hand up.

Speaker 1 (53:57):
You want to know so, because I'm going to be
the most simplistic about this. I you know, taught con
law to undergraduates for many years, and when I would
when I would explain the three pronged tests under the
Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, I would begin by saying
that every law discriminates, and what the equal Protection Clause

(54:19):
does is to try to say that when you discriminate,
you do so on the basis of a rational constitutional reason,
and what you don't do is discriminate on the basis
of something like something irrational, like and immutable characteristic a race,
and so on and the court over time developed the

(54:42):
three pronged the rational basis tests at the other end,
the suspect categories, and then the important governmental interest tests
it seems to take in sex and things like that.
There's a logic to it. I'm not sure that you know,
we're never going to go backwards and not have that test,
but there's logic to it. And I will give Roberts

(55:03):
more credit than our good friend Hadley in this case
because not allowing sexual identity, the power to choose your
sexual identity to become a suspect category means that the
courts gives a deference to the government and all those
other things that you know we teach about about that

(55:26):
three prong tests. But that was a huge win, and
I you know, you could, yeah, you could have the
court go off into some really important things about natural
law and so forth. But it was unnecessary because if
the opposite had happened. If the opposite had happened, if transsexual,
that whole despicable movement had somehow secured from a more

(55:51):
liberal court that that in and of itself was a
suspect category, this would have been disastrous. Would have been
no stopping the worst kinds of horrors in this society
done to children, and on and on and on. So
I'm going to again one more time. I'm going to

(56:11):
give Roberts some credit here. Maybe he could have gone further,
even as as our friend Hadley said to us, Thomas
didn't go for the why not It wasn't necessary. This
is not the place to school the entire country on
natural law.

Speaker 3 (56:26):
And we're going to get well, we're going to get
a letter from Hadley. I suspect if he let's suspect
that I agree.

Speaker 2 (56:32):
I think I agree with now I agree with Lucretia
that I think there's a difference between natural rights or
believing in natural rights, and which institution and our separation
of powers and federalism is the appropriate institution to carry
it into effect. So I think that what your talking
about here is just a variation on Hadley's argument about
Dobbs being wrong too, because he would have said, and Dobbs,

(56:56):
a court should have banned abortion nationwide, and he's here
saying Instagrammetti, you should have banned transgender medical treatments, not
just allow states to make them, but to ban them
outright right, because you don't recognize transgender I think those
are perfectly appropriate philosophical views to have and political views
to have. But in our system of government, that's the

(57:17):
argument you make to the legislature and the executive branch,
not the judiciary. So I do think, and you know,
I signed someone had these work in the classes I
teach because I want them to see how there are
people who have this philosophical belief. He's just like the
Dwarkins and the Rawles on the other side. He has

(57:38):
a philosophal beief and he wants to use the courts
to implement it because he thinks the moral view is
more important than respecting the separation of powers. That's really
what Scalia's whole career was about on the Supreme Court
was standing against every right. We talked about this as
famous lecture he gave at the Vatican where he said, I,
as a Catholic, agree that the death penalty is immoral,

(57:59):
but I am not going to strike down the death
penalty under the constitution. As a judge. You can do
it through the legislature. That but that's that's the other
Argan is going to just add on to the creature
by having the courts do that. You're going to see
less moral argument in politics, right, because everyone says, oh,
the Supreme Court is the moral arbiter. But if really
the legislators should make these moral arguments, like Lincoln is

(58:21):
the one who should make the moral arguments about.

Speaker 1 (58:23):
Well, and I would just go because we also just
kind of dismissively said that that's just majority rule and
you know, as popular sovereignty. But the point of the
matter is that that's that's what our constitution demands, and
and and when the legislature, when popular rule dovetails with

(58:48):
that's my word of the day. I guess with is
synchronized with what is morally right. Why would you argue
with that? Why would you go a step further further
undermine the the uh, you know, reputation of the court
with the left to do that, and you know, so
to the point where they no longer pay any attention

(59:08):
to court opinions. If this, if the Tennessee was a
Tennessee legislator or Kentucky Tennessee legislature came to such a
great decision, uphold the decision, you know that that's that's
what the court ought to do. And I again, like you, John,
I agree politically, morally with everything Hadley said, but I
also agreed that it's not the Court's place to do

(59:29):
those things. Even Thomas didn't do it, you know.

Speaker 2 (59:32):
Yeah, here's the thing about where it involves Lincoln. I
think Lincoln is right on this because Lincoln Hadley would
wouldn't Hadley say Lincoln was wrong or in saying that
we have to allow states to decide slavery, he would
say the Supreme Court and cred Scott should have struck
down slavery throughout the country, even though the Constitution plainly
allows states to decide for themselves at that time. Well,

(59:55):
I mean, that's just not tolerable under our system.

Speaker 3 (59:58):
Well, what we're going to have to do, because we
have run out of time, is let had we have
the last work in a future episode.

Speaker 1 (01:00:04):
Yes we do.

Speaker 3 (01:00:05):
We're gonna take that risk, but we are sadly out
of time, so we're not gonna But the subject of
the New York mayors race will keep because that's going
to go on for a while. Yeah, go ahead, Sorry,
what do you got for us?

Speaker 1 (01:00:18):
In powerful dissent, Catangi Brown Jackson simply writes, Wakanda forever.

Speaker 3 (01:00:23):
I know Barrett's already being called a racist of course
by the CNA whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:00:30):
I hope they just ignore that stuff. District Court issues
nationwide injunction on Supreme Court ruling. Okay, so this one's
for you, John. I smiled when I saw it. I
thought of you. Iran puts McDonald's signs in front of
remaining nuclear facilities, so Trump stops bombing them.

Speaker 2 (01:00:51):
That'll work. Oh yeah, especially if he puts they put
out some diet cokes right.

Speaker 1 (01:00:56):
Uh. Supreme Court legalizes Trump presidency. That's the part I
feel sorry for the Court about a little bit, because
you know, it just there's no winning on those sorts
of things if you come down if Trump is right,
and they come down on Trump's side, you know, anyway,
you get the point. I've been watching Pete haig Seth

(01:01:18):
this week. I watched his uh press conference where he
just took down Jennifer Griffith, Griffin, Griffith, whatever name is. Uh,
the dyke with the short hair. Sorry, No, she's not.
I know she's not. She's married to some awful leftist
and she decided after she had breast cancer that she
was gonna make a statement with her short, manly gray hair.

Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
Okay, I didn't want to know any of that.

Speaker 1 (01:01:44):
It's true. So but but she's she's always been a
shill for the left on Fox News, and everybody on
Fox News hates her. But anyway, Pete haig Seth vows
military will not discriminate against chicks, broads or dames. Just
a couple more, I swear in historic six to three

(01:02:07):
Supreme Court decision, three justices ruled to be morons, and
I did not write that headline and last one for
our friends in New York, Democrats discover innovative strategy of
promising free stuff to stupid people.

Speaker 3 (01:02:28):
Okay, okay, I'm done.

Speaker 2 (01:02:31):
Well to bring it to clothes. Always drink your whiskey.
Meat and Steve, now that you're back from your wayward travels,
what did you ask Ai to produce in terms of
a poem, Because there's no like produce an Icelandic right
epic poem, produce Nordic haiku? What did you ask it for?

Speaker 3 (01:02:52):
I'm taking a break from that temporarily for an ending
that I just love borrowed from you know who, and
it is thank you for your attempt into this matter.
By wire Ricochet, join the conversation