The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Time for Viking Justice?

John Yoo hosts this week where there is so much free trade in ideas that you'd need a 1,000% tariff to slow it down. Which the U.S. Court of Intenational Trade attempted to do for about six hours, during which time the 3WHH panel chews up the ruling and spits it out like a bad piece of Icelandic cod. (Which happens to be where Steve, now dubbed as the "International Man of No-Mystery" happens to be at the moment, which is why this episode comes with more than the usual amount of viking jokes and Norse epic poetry.) Anyway, the gang predicts this issue is likely to be another win for Trump when the dust settles.

But first the gang also ponders whether Trump is overdoing it with his attack on Harvard. Is it possible to overdo the attack on Harvard? You'll have to give a listen to this ad-free episode to find out.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well whiskey, come and fame, my pain, the money, my way.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
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
the lapped it up?

Speaker 3 (00:26):
And David, ain't you easy on the show? Tap out?
Agive me and let that wyloone.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
Welcome everybody to a globe spanning, worldwide edition of the
Three Whiskey Happy Hour. Because we're not just located this
weekend in California or wherever Lucretia hangs out. But today
I think we have to inaugurate Steve Hayward's new title,

(00:54):
the International Man of no Mystery. Because Steve, Steve.

Speaker 2 (01:01):
Where are you? Where are you? You are?

Speaker 1 (01:03):
You might be? This might be the farthest distance any
member of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour has journeyed from civilization.

Speaker 2 (01:11):
Oh well, that might be right. I'm going to say
not the farthest away. I mean, we did do several
episodes from Budapest the last couple of years. I am boy,
I'm a pretty remote spot though. I am in what
passes for the highlands of Iceland. I'm in this tiny
little hamlet that looks like the set of the Icelandic
version of High Planes Drifter that turns out to be
the highest settled, little tiny town in all of Iceland.

(01:34):
It's really it looks ultimately like Mars from the Mars
Rover or Nevada, except covered with moss and anyway, it's
pretty interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:42):
And Steve like, isn't this like the second or third
time you have gone back to visit your Viking slash
Norwegian Scandinavian four bears? Why do you keep going back
to these Baronic paces?

Speaker 4 (01:55):
He has no Viking four bears. My maiden name John
is Norman, as in the Norman Conquest.

Speaker 1 (02:04):
No, I had no idea, Yes, although somebody needs no. Actually,
that's that's actually a great title, Lucretia the Norman. It's like, right,
you know, well Barth the Death Dealer or something.

Speaker 2 (02:20):
Well, yeah, I mean, by the way, we need to
tell uh speaking of the Norman conquest, but we need
to tell King Charles that England rests on the ancestral
lands of the pre Normans. Whoever they were, right, was
the Norman conquest England?

Speaker 4 (02:33):
Right?

Speaker 2 (02:34):
You saw that?

Speaker 5 (02:34):
Right?

Speaker 2 (02:34):
King Charles went to Canada this week and gave a
land acknowledgment. I mean, what if you know, someone pointed
out on Twitter, doesn't King Charles understand that his most
fervent supporters in America are conservatives who like tradition and monarchy,
and the people will be most defended by his never mind,
it's it's I've never thought.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
Okay, So, Lucretia, you as Lucretia the Norman. I bet
you don't even take credit for King Charles because or
some carpetbagging German family.

Speaker 4 (03:02):
Right, yeah, exactly, anything after you know about ten sixty
six doesn't count.

Speaker 1 (03:11):
So Lucretia, how are you doing? And what do you
make of Steve's strange journeys up North north Way North? Well?

Speaker 4 (03:19):
I have to tell you so that this is going
to be a bit obscure. Forgive me, but I got
an email from a friend talking about that Atlantic article
really quick that said the new DEI is conservatism and
that you know, College's JOHNS Hopkins, I believe it was
is looking to increase the intellectual diversity of its faculty

(03:45):
by adding a couple of token conservatives, I guess to
the faculty.

Speaker 5 (03:50):
So I didn't bother to it is so stupid.

Speaker 4 (03:52):
The whole point of DEI is that it was anything
but intellectual diversity. But anyway, so this sends it to
me and says Hopkins, Hopkins.

Speaker 5 (04:02):
Here we come.

Speaker 4 (04:03):
And I sent the quote that Steve had included in
a sub stect the other day about feminist glaciology, and
I said, oh, we could go back to this, because
Steve had a wonderful little piece where he didn't he
didn't even have to make a joke, he didn't have

(04:24):
to be critical. He just let the stupidity of feminist
glaciology speak for itself. Is that true, Steve?

Speaker 2 (04:33):
Yep, that's right. I mean, the worst thing you can
do to these radical academics is give their work wider
exposure because it's so absurd. I mean, it makes it
clear that luna. Our universities are filled with lunatics, and
they get published and they make the most noise. And
that's the problem. I maybe we'll get to Harvard John
but that's the problem. And I did read the whole

(04:54):
article actually Cretia, but we'll postpone that to another time
because I know several of the people mentioned in it.
I've actually known it about the JOHNS Hoppin Initiative, which
goes back several years. The president Daniels Ron Daniels, I think,
said Daniels is the name of the president, and supposedly
he was dismayed. Oh left out of that story is
as I understand it, He's got a very large contribution,

(05:16):
like you know, seven figures from somebody who said, look,
you need more political diversity in your faculty, and Daniels said,
I agree, and he had meetings apparently, you know, with
people we know. I'm not going to mention specific names
right now. A couple are mentioned in the articles, but
several that we know in respect or not. But that
was three four years ago and nothing has happened. So

(05:37):
I think it's all a farce so far, and you know,
more to be said later.

Speaker 1 (05:43):
Great, So why don't we actually, why don't we dive
in with the Harvard News first, and then we'll talk
about what everyone's talking about today, which is tariff's and
the decision of the Quarter of International Trade to stop
the Trump tarras. But first, the war with Harvard continues.
The latest news this week just actually right before we

(06:04):
started the podcast, news came out that a federal District
judge in Boston, Massachusetts, has barred the Trump administration from
its effort to I guess the way you explain it
is to take away Harvard's right to give out visas
to cross the border. And I think Harvard actually specifies

(06:27):
that most of them have to go through Lucretia's backyard
on the way to Cambridge, Massachusetts. So we'll want to
hear from her about this. They wouldn't, but just the background.
Just give the background, because I don't I give you
for the Yeah, let me give the background, because I
don't think we uh talked about on the podcast yet.

(06:48):
But Lucretia probably works on this. I've worked on this
at Berkeley. But people probably don't know that universities, A
lot of universities have almost a proxy right from the
federal government to give out visas to students that his
visiting researchers. I would say not. The closest review by
the Department of Homeland Security and the Trump administration took

(07:12):
this away from Harvard, said Harvard's no longer allowed to
give out these visas, effectively preventing Harvard from having any
foreign students and researchers next year. And one of the
things I was shocked to learn is that something like
one quarter of the Harvard student body comes from abroad.
One quarter of the Harvard not undergraduates, all students, a

(07:32):
lot more a lot of graduate students. So that's one.
Another thing that happened this week is that President Trump
tweeted out that he was going to take away all
of Harvard's grants, which he said were three billion dollars
in amount, and then he toyed with the idea of

(07:52):
sending them to vocational schools instead the money, causing a
lot of discussion this week while Steve's been away. So Lucristiaan,
let's start with you. What do you think about this
continuing campaign against Harvard and these two battles, one overgiving
student visas, one about taking away Harvard's research grants.

Speaker 4 (08:12):
So let me start with the first one, and let
me say that at one point I was recruited by
a certain agency to.

Speaker 5 (08:22):
How should I.

Speaker 4 (08:23):
Say this, keeping it very vague, try to discover which
Chinese students were likely in Chinese graduate students were likely
to be sending intellectual property, sensitive intellectual property back to China.
Thinking that you know somebody who is sort of The

(08:46):
last person you think of that would care do or
anything about that or care it would be someone like me.
But anyway, that's been a problem for a long time,
and you said it yourself, John, they have not been
nearly as careful or they haven't used any anywhere near
the care they should about just letting students in. That's obvious,

(09:08):
and the reaction to the fact that we're saying, hey,
if you don't like America, if you're gonna come here
and try to undermine American values, we don't want you here.

Speaker 5 (09:14):
Marco Rubio has been great about.

Speaker 4 (09:16):
That, right, But because there's been no care taken over
the many years other than let's worry about the Chinese
stealing our secrets and solve the problem after it's already unsolvable.
The government's been terrible. Trump is trying to turn that around,
and of course you know he's starting with Harvard. I
do want a aside. It has nothing to do with

(09:37):
the fact that Trump couldn't get into Harvard or Bear
and couldn't get into Harvard. First of all, you get
into Harvard if you are a legacy or until you know,
very recently, if you are the right minority marginalized group.
You certainly don't get into Harvard if you're a handsome
Asian guy unless you're at least John's age and that. So,

(09:58):
you know, there's all this nonsense, all this no right,
one more little aside. Steve and I went to the
same graduate school, and I actually left that graduate school
because it went into essentially went into receivership. And one
of the things that they were doing, John is they
were paying for poor students like me with the money

(10:20):
of the tuition money from rich Saudi Arabian princes and whatnot,
and bringing in a lot of rich Saudi Arabians.

Speaker 5 (10:29):
Okay, that's great.

Speaker 4 (10:31):
Did get me through graduate school there, and then they
weren't leaving. That became the first problem. And then it
turned out that they were actually paying other poor graduate
students like me. I didn't to write their dissertations because
of course they were too stupid to do any of that. Anyway,
the whole thing blew up. They shut the department is
now gone. It's gone, and so this is not a

(10:53):
new thing where you know, rich foreigners pay the tuition
of poor people like me. I think it's great. I
think it's absolutely wonderful. And I do want to point
out to you guys before we got on, we talked
about Alison Burrows, who was the Dutch.

Speaker 2 (11:09):
Judge judge judge the ruling against Harvard against Trump today. Right.

Speaker 4 (11:16):
Yes, she was also the judge who heard the Harvard
case in the Students for Fair Admissions, uh and and
of course decided in favor of Harvard.

Speaker 5 (11:25):
But I mentioned these guys.

Speaker 4 (11:27):
That she made a really first dy. It was done
with no jury trial, but she made a really dumb ruling,
which was that she wasn't going to allow to be
put into evidence a number of emails that had gone
back and forth between like the dean and the enrollment
counselors whatever, making fun of Asian students, and she she

(11:49):
didn't allow that to go into evidence in the trial.
And then she said there's no evidence of discrimination against
any Asian students at Harvard. And then of course it
came out on appeal and made her look like an idiot,
which she obviously is, but it didn't obviously hurt her career.

Speaker 2 (12:07):
Well, everyone knew that a district court judge from Boston,
based in Boston was going to rule in favor of Harvard. Right,
that was just a given, just a couple quick facts
that are interesting to me. And in a speculation, I
caught a note from Charles Murray who said a Harvard
class of sixty five I think was Charles, and he
looked at his entering class in nineteen sixty one or

(12:29):
sixty whatever it was. He said it was ninety eight
percent American in less than two percent foreign students. And
as recently I saw somewhere else as nineteen ninety the
student body at Harvard was only about ten percent foreign.
So the fact that it's now twenty five percent for
foreign and I think, by the way you hint, John,
that this is probably skewed to the graduate program. So

(12:51):
maybe it may be in some of those programs, you know,
fifty percent foreign or more. I mentioned this once before
in another context, but I think we may find it here.
I think what you'll find is a lot of those
people admitted are for you know, the bean counting purposes.
People of color. They may be quite able, you know,
Indians and you know, I mentioned once before, I think

(13:13):
that I had a research assistant from Ghana. Young lady
had been to Middlebury and she was really good. She
ended up going on to Princeton for graduate school. And
it turned out she was from a rich gun In family.
She'd gone to you know, fancy boarding schools in Switzerland, right,
so she's probably very able to do high level college
work in America. And guess what that's that those universities

(13:34):
gets to count them as black for their quota purposes.
And some undergraduate colleges like Middlebury and Williams and elsewhere,
this has become a complaint for the Black Lives Matters crowd.
And of course the politicians do don't want to come
anywhere near this controversy. But if you actually disaggregated the
foreign students and compared them to the American student in

(13:55):
Midies and so forth, I'll bet it would be yet
one more embarrassment for our elite colleges.

Speaker 1 (14:01):
Christian, let me fill up on the second point. What
do you think about President Trump cutting off all grants
to Harvard? Can he do that? Is this actually a
good idea? So Harvard's response and they hired two very
well known Republican lawyers to represent them, including one Robert Hurr.

Speaker 2 (14:19):
Actually very clever, oh very clever.

Speaker 1 (14:23):
Very clever of Harvard to do that. You know, they
say in the president of Harvard sent out blast emails saying,
this is going to ruin our ability to do medical research.
Look at all the amazing discoveries by Harvard that have
lengthened human life spans and done such good for the world. Chretia,
what do you think about So.

Speaker 4 (14:43):
That's a really interesting question, John, and kind of a
bigger question. I was hoping we might get to discuss
this week because I've seen it over and over Trump
cutting off funds to NPR. We talked about it briefly
when we talked about Trump deciding not to Trump's war
on the law firms that had participated in prosecuting him

(15:08):
before he became president. Again, I believe that you, if
you're the president making those kinds of decisions, that you
have to do so in a way that's fair. You
couldn't just discriminate against Harvard for no reason and say
my kid didn't get in, so you're not getting any money,
but to say that you have that Harvard discriminates against Jews,

(15:31):
et cetera, and has not taken steps as they've been
asked to do to curb anti Semitism at Harvard. And
if you don't do that, we will stop, we will
stop federal money going to you in research grants. That's
been done before. It just went the other way, right,
it went the other way. Nobody questioned that the court could,

(15:55):
for instance, excuse me, that the president could, for instance,
an administration could say to I'll say Bob Jones University,
but make up what they didn't do, which was if
they discriminate against blacks and say we don't want any
blacks in our university. Nobody would have even blinked an
I if the administration at the time it said you're

(16:18):
not getting any federal grants from us, then I mean
they went.

Speaker 5 (16:20):
Much much further.

Speaker 4 (16:21):
No pelgrants, no student loans, etc. So what Trump is
doing from a purely legal point of view is absolutely fine.
It's the political fight that matters, right, and how he
comes down on.

Speaker 2 (16:35):
That well stee So I think there's a great irony
at work here if you go back in the record,
as they say, to the late forties and early fifties,
when you know Van ver Bush first set out our
science strategy for the federal government and the involved spending
research dollars through universities for science research right technical research,

(16:56):
and then again with the Secondary Education Act whatever it
was in nineteen five fifty eight, after the spot Nick crisis, Right,
we need more scientists. Around those years, the almost all
of the presidents of Ivy League colleges said, we're not
sure this is a good idea because federal funding will
come with federal strings and maybe political domination from Washington,
so we're not sure that. But on the other hand,

(17:17):
the money was just too lucrative and the purpose was
seemed so straightforward and sensible, right, more scientists, more scientific research,
that they succummed and went with it. So now all
of a sudden, look where we are. I'll add one
more thing here to bolster Lucreatia's point. Stephen Pinker, who
is You know, he's some interesting guy. He's actually kind
of a liberal, but he's descended from the left and

(17:38):
resisted the left at Harvard. He had an article in
The New York Times a few days ago saying this
is terrible what Trump is doing. But then he spent
like three or four paragraphs saying, but I want to
remind you, over the last six seven years, I've been
fighting wokeriy at Harvard, and I've been saying we need
more intellectual diversity. I've been fighting against quotas, this, this,
and this, And when he got to the end of

(18:00):
his litany about how Harvard's imperfect, I thought, and yes,
what good has all that done? What changes have been made? None?
Harvard still gets an f from the Foundation for Individual
Rights and Expression for being the worst campus in the
country for free speech. And so the point is is
that nothing is going to change until the universities get

(18:21):
the metaphysical metaphorical equivalent of a two by four across
the head. And that's what Trump is doing. I'm sure
they're going to affect some useful medical research and other
scientific research. I'm sure if this spreads. By the way, John,
you know, some of the best students that I've met
at Berkeley Law have been some of these Raeli students
who come over in the LLLM program, right, And they're

(18:42):
usually really good and really sensible and sound, and it'd
be a shame if they're excluded from our universities. But
things are so bad with the universities that I agree
completely little Cretia that you know, the time for maximum
pressure has arrived. And again the fact that the universities
are fine the federal pressure when they agree with what
the federal government wants him to do, so they really

(19:04):
don't have much of a leg to stand on to complain. Now,
it seems to me.

Speaker 1 (19:08):
So quick in question before we move on to Tariff's
Lucretia's favorite subject, mind you, but what else could Trump do?
So I both of you say this is part of
a almost like a cultural fight between Trump and the
groups in society he represents and higher education inc. Right,

(19:31):
what else could Trump? Do? You know that Trump does
seem to have Harvard and other universities on the back foot,
but they are fighting. They are Harvard is fighting back, right,
They've launched lawsuits, they've launched a I'm sure they're spending
a lot of money on a big PR campaign. You're
seeing Steve saying, you're seeing the effects and various you
know where other students gonna go tapped me to Israeli students.

(19:52):
What could Trump do next, Lucretia.

Speaker 4 (19:54):
Well, remember that he's gotten Congress to increase the tax
on endowments or potentially, I mean, he's not doing that
on his own, but Congress would have never have decided
to do such a thing had Trump not pushed this
taxing tuition I mean, it's really all a matter of

(20:17):
going after going after Harvard from the point of view
of legitimate exercises of federal power, not all presidential power.
But you know, again getting Congress to do some of
these things too. But Trump leading the way means that Congress,
if Congress goes along with it, that does actually change

(20:38):
the dynamic a little bit. I think that that Harvard
will keep fighting. I saw on an article this morning,
I think it was by Turley, Jonathan Turley, who said
that this is a This is Trump is Grant and
Harvard is the Confederacy, and basically Trump is likely even
though he's likely to lose some just like Grant did.

(21:00):
This is a war of attrition, and from that point
of view, Trump has considerably more resources at his disposal
than Harvard does.

Speaker 2 (21:10):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (21:11):
Indeed, I mean, what about what other what are errors
are in the Trump quiver waiting to be well?

Speaker 2 (21:16):
I think, well, something that he's already doing apparently, but
I think should be broadened is Trump has said we
want to put a limit of fifteen percent on overhead
for federal grants, which seems like reasonable fee to me,
and so we know some are much higher than that.
But I think it should be broadened and make an
explicit war on administrative bloat. And I don't know what
the legal grounds for that would be. I mean, my

(21:37):
other thought is you price controls on tuition increases. I
don't think the president has authority to do that, and
it would require an Act of Congress. But I still
think that again, some threats about the absolutely undisplicant and
profligate spending of the universities ought to be a major target.
And by the way, there is a tribute to the
middle class. You know, it used to be that you
could even you know, private university forty fifty years ago,

(22:00):
if you worked hard at a summer job, you could
pretty much pay your full year's tuition and room and board.
Now it's not even remotely possible for someone who wants
to do that, even with some financial aid. And that's
the fault of the universities and the federal government subsidizing
your student loans and things like that. So I think
maximum pressure on the university is to cut their straight
bloat and cut their costs. But Mitch Daniels has proved

(22:21):
it's not hard to do. You know, Purdue froze their
tuition what fifteen years ago now and hasn't raised it once.
It's not hard to do, it's just the other collologists
won't do it, so make them do it.

Speaker 4 (22:33):
Well, I would never underestimate the amount of money that
is spent on administrative bloat, not all of which is DEI,
but much of it is. And I just want to
tell you that I was meeting with my university CFO.
And of course, you know, my college has had lots
of money. The universities now two hundred and seventy million

(22:55):
dollars in debt, two hundred and seventy million dollars.

Speaker 5 (22:59):
Because they're just the idiots.

Speaker 4 (23:00):
But anyway, so I said, well, because this is a
few months ago, I said, you know the fact that
you have to fire all of those DEI pro vice
provos and assistant provos and assistant deans and this and that.
I said, I want to save you a lot of money,
shouldn't it. You know, no, no answer. And then, of course,

(23:21):
because what's happened except in my college, is that all
of those all of those people got new jobs that
are belonging in community oriented instead of they don't have
DEI because those are the buzzwords that they search for
on web pages and so on. But you know, they
didn't get rid of any of those people when they

(23:41):
could have, And so I don't feel sorry for him.
I don't.

Speaker 5 (23:44):
You know, it's ridiculous. I don't.

Speaker 1 (23:48):
Okay, So Trump's going to continue you heard it here. First,
Trump will continue hitting universities in the pocketbook, which is
where they really really live. So let's move to an
their pocketbook issue, which is tariffs. So just late yesterday,
the Court of International Trade. Let me explain a very

(24:09):
obscure but still federal court that exists to essentially rule
only on trade issues. So, for example, if you think
some country is cheating you in their imports and should
get some kind of extra duty put on their products,
you go to the Court of a national Trader. You
think your product's been misclassified and is in the wrong

(24:29):
tariff schedule, you go to the Court of in National Trade.
I'm not sure why it's even a court. I don't
know why you need a court for this. I'm not
sure why it's an Article three court. Why these are
lifetime federal judicial appointments.

Speaker 2 (24:42):
Wait, John, are they lifetime appointments or are they That's.

Speaker 1 (24:45):
Another weird thing that's another weird thing. These are Article
three federal judges. You would have thought these people would
be more like immigration judges or something.

Speaker 2 (24:53):
Well, let me ask a question here, just for information purposes,
because I mean, I thought under Article three that the
clause that Congress and create inferior courts, Man, there could
be courts that weren't, you know, Article three lifetime tenures,
for example, the court.

Speaker 1 (25:06):
Of Yeah, that's a different power.

Speaker 2 (25:09):
Well is that okay?

Speaker 1 (25:10):
And it's a good conservative, Steve, it's a good conservative.
Your instinct is right that why are there any of
these non lifetime court federal courts at all? They seem unconstitutional?

Speaker 2 (25:20):
Well, I think i'm.

Speaker 4 (25:21):
They're generally Article one courts, right, is what they are.

Speaker 1 (25:24):
Generally Article what we call Article one courts, and conservatives
have long thought these things were unconstitutional.

Speaker 2 (25:31):
Just another quick question is that the Court of Federal Claims,
which is where you go most of the time, it's
for contract disbuse with the federal government. If you have
a contract with the federal government, you take it there.
But it has been a quarter over the years that
heard some takings claims back in the eighties that you know,
under Lauren Smith when he was the chief judge. Is
that an Article one court or an Article three court?

Speaker 1 (25:49):
Yes, this is the weird thing. If you have a
case where the government breaks a contract with you or
takes your property, you go to a non Article three court,
But if you have stupid trade dispute you go to
an Article three court. It makes no sense. Okay, John, Before,
can I just explain the larger constitution. This is a
really interesting constitutional question that conservatives in general don't like

(26:13):
what Congress has done, although some like Renquists do. Actually,
this might be a positivist versus natural law thing now
they think about it. I never thought of it that way.
So you could Steve point to the right power. The
Constitution says Congress can create inferior tribunals. A conservative would say, then,
I think, well, every time Congress creates one that's a
federal court and gets the judge gets lifetime protection. Can

(26:36):
only be repoved through impeachment if they if they don't
engage in you know, you say, they engage in un
good behavior and bad behavior.

Speaker 2 (26:44):
Right.

Speaker 1 (26:45):
But in the late nineteenth century, this is a progressive
era thing. Congress started creating courts, but they didn't give
them the protections of Article three. These judges, So today
the biggest one is immigration courts, but you also mentioned
one to Steve, the Court of Federal Claims.

Speaker 2 (27:04):
So they're maritime course.

Speaker 1 (27:11):
No, they're not maritime court. There's a thing called maritime jurisdiction.
But they're not special like they're prize There used to
be prize courts, right. But so conservatives have long struggled
with this. They've said, like, how can Congress create judges
and courts but doesn't give them lifetime tenure like the
Court of Federal Claims. Those judges have a set term

(27:31):
of years, and so doesn't that mean those judges can
be pressured and controlled by Congress and the president. Why
do they get to be called judges at all? So
that's one thing. On the other hand, there are people
like Renkquists who used to say, ah, this is great,
because otherwise how would we process He said, every social
security case right, every change in social security benefits is

(27:53):
a federal right. And he said they'd be impossible to
have enough federal judges to do that.

Speaker 5 (27:58):
Sorry, so it's a kay.

Speaker 4 (28:00):
No, I wasn't trying to interrupt.

Speaker 5 (28:01):
I'm just trying to understand.

Speaker 4 (28:02):
So the Article one power in Article one, Section eight
is to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. The
Article three power is the judicial power of the United States.
The judicial power of the United States shall be in
vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts

(28:24):
as the Congress may from time to time ordain and established.
So I think what you were saying is is that
you shouldn't consider those two separate powers. That the definition
of the judicial power is any any court that exercises
judicial power would come under Article three. And it just
makes it clear that it's Congress that is the one

(28:47):
who creates those It says it twice basically, right.

Speaker 1 (28:53):
As I say, Conservatives think about it is legal concerns
would say, well, it's just like the executive power. Congress
can create agencies, but once they're agencies, then the President
controls them when they become executive in nature, and they
have to run along the same they run in the
same way, same with the provision Steve mentioned. Congress can
create courts, but once they're courts, they have to operate

(29:15):
under Article three. And because of the progressive era, we
have these bizarre courts, but they don't operate within Article
three they operate, just however Congress chooses to tell them
to operate.

Speaker 4 (29:28):
Well, let's go back to your trade court for just
a minute. Then I'm going to play Devil's advocate here.
If that's the case, then a your trade court, what's
it called again? International court?

Speaker 1 (29:37):
What's it called Order of International Trade?

Speaker 5 (29:39):
The cit see ida.

Speaker 4 (29:42):
Then in fact it should be an Article three court.
And isn't Congress's power over the anything below the Supreme
Court plenary in the sense that as long as it
is in fact a so what the judicial power extends
to an Article three which is in section two, all

(30:04):
of those different descriptions of the kinds of cases the
court is allowed to hear, it's your courts are allowed
to hear. Then then Congress can do pretty much what
it wants to. It's not necessarily held, for instance, to
the judicial system created and the Judiciaryict of seventeen eighty
nine and eighteen oh one, and on and on and on.
Is that an unfair way of looking at it?

Speaker 1 (30:25):
No, I mean, I think you're about to be hired
as a clerk on the Court of International Trade. Not
necessarily a good idea.

Speaker 5 (30:32):
I'm just saying, I'm just kids.

Speaker 1 (30:34):
No. The judges on the Federal Court of a nature
often teased about this because I know one or two
of them, and I always say to them, I don't
understand why you're a court. I agree with you, Lucretia.
If you're going to be a court, you should have
lifetime tenure. You should be a federal court. Why do
we need a court to adjust tariff schedules is beyond me,
That's what I mean. There's no real federal rights at

(30:56):
issue here.

Speaker 2 (30:57):
It's not well, we seem to be.

Speaker 1 (30:58):
We seem to be at the point.

Speaker 2 (31:00):
Sorry, we've seing to be at the point where I
expect any day now the judge Wattner, the People's Court
is going to hand down a ruling against Trump.

Speaker 4 (31:09):
Yeah, that's that's the next point. But then let me
go one step for last time we talked about this,
and Steve actually almost cut the whole thing, but we
didn't really get to finish. If if Congress has plenary
power over the district courts and the appellate courts, even
though we have long traditions of them operating a certain

(31:29):
way and being organized in a certain way, could not
Congress pass a law completely or redefining a case in
controversy and parties before the court. In other words, couldn't
Congress quite easily pass a law forbidding universal injunctions by
district courts? I mean that is within their power?

Speaker 5 (31:50):
Correct?

Speaker 1 (31:52):
I would think so, But there is a whole court.
I mean Lucretia's usual asks a very simple sounds like
a very simple question, but it is not. There's a
whole course on this question in law school called federal courts,
because what they actually the harder issue is, suppose Congress
just said the lower courts can't hear immigration cases. Right,

(32:14):
We're gonna write, you know, how far could Congress go in?
And could they do that to the Supreme Court too?
Could they do it by saying there will be no
appeals to the Supreme Court right in immigration cases? There's
literally a whole course about this subject about how far
can Congress go and its control of the courts. I
tend to be a congress can like you said, the

(32:35):
creature has pleundary power of those courts, and so they
can say you can issue certain kinds of injunctions but
not others. You can hear certain kinds of cases but
not others. I would tell you ninety five I think percent.
I would bet of constitutional law professors believe, however, that
there is something they call the essential functions thesis, that

(32:56):
there's some essential function of the federal course that cannot
be taken way by Congress. Congress can create the court,
but there's some right, some nub that Congress can't go
and changing their central function. Now where that comes from
and what it is is totally seems like, you know whatever,
I the beholder, go ahead, the creature, then we'll get

(33:19):
to this.

Speaker 4 (33:20):
Yeah, I know, I'm sorry, I'm really taking this.

Speaker 1 (33:21):
This is far. Let me tell listeners, this is far
more interesting than the decision, believe me, But go ahead.

Speaker 4 (33:27):
So the other day there was an article Steve and
I discussed it briefly before you came on by Mark
Mark Halprin in the Wall Street Journal, and one of
the things he said, I wish I had the article
in front of me. He said something really dumb, which
was that after you know that, then all these universal injunctions, Yeah,

(33:47):
maybe they weren't such a great idea.

Speaker 5 (33:49):
The left.

Speaker 4 (33:50):
The left is guilty of ignoring the Constitution. The right
is guilty of ignoring the Constitution.

Speaker 5 (33:56):
But then he.

Speaker 4 (33:57):
Chastised, I'm not exactly sure whom I guess the right
in general for talking about impeaching these federal judges who
were issuing universal injunctions against the Trump administration even though
the things were popular, etcetera, etcetera. And he made this
really stupid argument, talking about impeaching and other kinds of

(34:19):
ways of fighting back against the court instead of just
upholding the Constitution and gracefully taking the loss. Something along
those lines. What a stupid thing to say. And it
reminds me of the discussion you and I had about
the exceptions clause. You may not want judges to be

(34:40):
impeached every time they make an unpopular decision, but there's
nothing in the Constitution that prevents that. It is a
perfectly legitimate exercise of Congress, the power of Congress to
impeach and convict a judge. We're not even sure why
for bad behavior.

Speaker 5 (34:58):
You know, that was the.

Speaker 4 (34:59):
Whole debate way back in the early eighteen hundreds about
whether you had to impeach a judge for high crimes
and misdemeanors.

Speaker 5 (35:09):
Or you could just do it because you didn't like
his rulings.

Speaker 4 (35:11):
And they decided I guess sort of in the favor
of a more exacting standard, but it's not clear if
the Constitution requires that. Impeachment seems to be one of
those very important checks on the court that our founding
fathers established, along with the exceptions clause, neither of which
are used to check the court in any way, shape

(35:33):
or form.

Speaker 1 (35:35):
I mean, I think that's fair that the idea we
don't impeach judges because we disagree with the decisions is
not in the Constitution as much as it's just something
that we've had since the Jefferson impeachments failed. And you know,
that's more political norm than you know, claim the Constitution
prohibits it. And there are people who've said, why doesn't

(35:57):
bad behavior include the idea of getting something deliberately wrong
or really wrong or abusing your powers. So there's a
difference between you know, getting a hard question of law
right and a judge, you know, seizing legislative power. Well,
it's executive power, perfectly fair, Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2 (36:13):
But look, it all goes back to that Wiley John Marshall.
If he had found and and issued a rid of
man damus for Jefferson to deliver the commission that will
be in myberry. Maybe he would have been impeached and
the president wouldn't have been respect for judicial complete juditional independence.
But maybe we'd be impeaching judges left and right since.

Speaker 4 (36:29):
The Remember Marshall was so concerned about the possibility of
setting the precedent of using impeachment to get rid of
judges for political reasons that he was ready to give
up entirely the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Speaker 2 (36:50):
I don't remember that part, but I do know our
late friend Michael Yulman, our late friend Michael Uman Yulman
used to say, you know, marshall worship is out of
hand or there's a contrary case to be made about him,
and he liked to do that sort of thing. But
I but, but, John, I mean.

Speaker 1 (37:06):
I think it's more question of what's good government. And
I think it is good that we don't impeach judges
for bad decisions. Just it's good. Then the Federal I
just think it's good the Federal Reserve Board is independent
of political control, even though I don't think constitutionally it is.
It's a yeah, but away, let me let's get to
the substant decision.

Speaker 4 (37:23):
We get interesting.

Speaker 1 (37:25):
Issue, right, Yeah, you know, I am the og Neo
kan as you said, and I was at the Neo
con conclave. As Steve said, it's the only voting member left.

Speaker 2 (37:36):
I think they're at the conclave.

Speaker 1 (37:38):
So but let's let me let's let me describe the
substance of the decision and get your thoughts because if
you were I actually have to say, if you were
a supporter of Trump, this is not such a bad
decision because it's so badly done that his chances on
appeal actually really could I'm very surprised by how, you know,
weak this decision is. So the decision, says uh, And

(38:00):
it goes back to Nixon, Steve's favorite president. For a
law that will not be named, but basically sad there
was a law called the Trading with the Enemy Act
of nineteen seventeen, classic Woodrow Wilson progressive law. It said
basically that the president can impose almost any economic sanction
or any economic measure in the event of war national emergency.

Speaker 2 (38:22):
And what note that was the law years go ahead, Well,
Roosevelt from Roosevelt invoked that law to do the bank
holiday in nineteen thirty three.

Speaker 1 (38:32):
What yes, so, yeah, presidents started saying national emergency. I
can yes, go off the gold standard. See this was well,
I was heavily abused by FDR when he took office.
And so Nixon basically tried to impose tariffs under this
law called the TUIA. It's called and so after and

(38:53):
this is one of the Watergate reforms, the Congress passed
the IEPA law, and that's the law it's issued today,
the International Economic Emergency Powers Act AIPA of nineteen seventy seven.
Oh you know, that was going to be my sixth
law of jurisprudence that we'd get to is that any
law passed in the nineteen seventies is a bad laws.

(39:17):
Just like yah, yeah, set it's too easy, Yeah, too easy,
too easy. But you know, so this court held. So
President Trump said, triggered, he said there's a national emergency
because of these. He actually issued two that irrelevant. One
was the trafficking infentanyl and drugs and drug cartels and
illegal aliens across our northern and southern borders through Canada, Mexico,

(39:41):
and because of China. So that's one set of tariffs
and then another set and those parts were just named
a Canada Mexico and China. Then there was another set
of tariffs, which the court calls worldwide tariffs, where right
Trump triggered a national emergency. Said it was because of
the trade deficit. And if you remember, put tariffs on
every country in the world, and you know, with different variations.

(40:05):
So the court yesterday struck them both down and said,
and here's the weird logic of it. It said, Uh,
the ip A law could not possibly give Trump or
any president this power, because it did, it would be
too broad a power. And if it's this broad of power,
we don't think Congress would have done that. We don't

(40:26):
think even though the law says the president is allowed
to regulate any international transaction with a country that he
specifies an event of an international emergency that he declares,
so this is this is so that's what. Uh. And
then the second thing, and it gets even worse. So
the law says that the president's allowed to issue these

(40:49):
kinds of orders in order to deal with an international emergency.
The court says, tariffs don't deal with the trade deficit.
And I'm sorry, let me freeze that. Tariffs don't deal
with the trafficking issues. Tariffs aren't going to reduce fentanyl.
Tariffs aren't going to reduce the movement by drug cartels
and terrorist groups across our borders. So the court actually

(41:10):
said deals with an international emergency is not met here.
This is the most bit. I actually think this is
such a weak opinion when you when you hear the
actual logic of the court. And so that's another reason
I was teasing when lucushe is saying, why are you
saying these are bof of course, I was like, here's
a good example. These are judges who spend all their
dial time saying is this important? All like an educational product?

(41:32):
Are they under the rife tariff schedules? They can't deal
with these questions of fundamental importance?

Speaker 2 (41:37):
Right?

Speaker 1 (41:37):
This is a fundamental question of And Steve mentioned this
when we were talking about this case earlier. Steve said,
is this a non delegation doctrine case?

Speaker 2 (41:46):
Right?

Speaker 1 (41:46):
Is this like Scheckter and the sick Chicken case? It is,
but this court totally missed it, and they totally there's
and one last thing I'll shut up is the Supreme
Court is set in a case called Curtis right that
the non delegation doctrine does not apply in foreign affairs.
This case is not mentioned in the decision at all.
So that's why when I was starting this whole out

(42:08):
thing out the Crucia, I was like, why is this
thing a court? Who are these people who are on
this court? Why do we have judges, you know, looking
at dolls and tariff schedules, hearing the most important constitutional
questions of the day. Anyway, So Steve, why don't you
go ahead? Since you, I think are going to be
under AEPA sanctions soon and not allowed back into the country.
But we're obviously an agent for some Norwegian Scandinavian power

(42:30):
crossing our borders at will.

Speaker 2 (42:32):
Yeah, I'm going to illegally import puffins. You know you
can actually gets here and.

Speaker 1 (42:37):
Actually, Steve, since you're there, Steve, since you're there, I
got I got a trivic question. I'm curious what is
Iceland's number one export to the United States?

Speaker 2 (42:45):
I have no idea. Do you know what it is?

Speaker 1 (42:48):
Really? No, you don't know. No, I don't know, but
I'll find out in a second.

Speaker 5 (42:52):
Okase, really cool?

Speaker 2 (42:57):
Probably fish, I don't know it's the.

Speaker 1 (43:00):
Export here, You're gonna laugh. The top export is aluminum.

Speaker 2 (43:03):
Oh that that does not surprise me.

Speaker 1 (43:06):
Number two, Number two, Number two, you're right, fish file
at Yeah, and then number three this one. I really
don't get this orthopedic appliances.

Speaker 2 (43:17):
I don't get that either. Uh. The aluminum, so you know,
they have tons of electricity here from geothermal and hydro.
It's very cheap. And because aluminum needs so much electricity
to smelt, this is one of the dominant producers. And
I've drove driven by a couple of enormous aluminum factories,
so that that that's boring stuff.

Speaker 1 (43:35):
Look my first and I just one one one cemiment.
Last year fish filets did overtake aluminum. So last year
fish filets.

Speaker 5 (43:43):
Were which kind of fish they like?

Speaker 2 (43:46):
Atlantic char is very popular here.

Speaker 1 (43:50):
I find I find fish and effeminate food to eat,
so I don't eat it.

Speaker 4 (43:53):
So I don't distinguish between the kinds of fish.

Speaker 5 (43:58):
John, So, did you knowallops?

Speaker 1 (44:03):
Yeah? I mean yeah, the McDonald's fish fillet is not
so bad.

Speaker 2 (44:06):
Well, see, while we're digressing, John, Uh, there are no
McDonald's in Iceland. What I don't we invade.

Speaker 1 (44:14):
We're ready to invade, because we don't invade countries that
have McDonald's.

Speaker 5 (44:19):
Right, and there's there's a rule number six.

Speaker 2 (44:24):
Yeah, well that's the there are no mosquitos here either,
which I think is also kind of interesting.

Speaker 1 (44:30):
So uh okay, So Steve, what do you think you
think you don't have to get into these decisions if
you don't want to. What do you think about the
tariff fish altogether? Too?

Speaker 2 (44:38):
Well, first of all, I mean, I don't care for tariffs,
although I'm, again like other people, willing to give Trump
some leeway on this because it's just interesting.

Speaker 4 (44:45):
Because he's winning on it.

Speaker 2 (44:46):
Well, I think that I think there's a chance that
we will never I won't get off on this general
field theory I have these days. But my thought is,
ironically this make it may make it more likely that
Trump's tariff powers survive, because this is such a crazy
opinion from this obscure court. Because I think, if you know,
our friend fil Hamburger's group has brought a suit through
regular federal court saying this is an improper delegation of power.

(45:10):
And I think if a a federal court or even
the Supreme Court said yeah, Congress can't delegate those kind
of broad powers of regulating foreign commerce, and I first
thought of immediately without getting into you know, the filings
and all the rest of that, or that opinion that
this is Curtis right and Scheckter all over again. And
I think it is too broad a power for a
president to have if we want massive tariffs or some

(45:33):
sort of schedule to try and shake things up. I
do think, you know, Congress, that's an Article one, section
eight power. It can't be handed to the president. And
I think, you know, Congress should work harder on this,
and I think they they don't don't like it to
but I think now if it gets to a federal
district court, they're gonna say no, that power's fine, and
Trump wins, and I think they've just set themselves up

(45:55):
for a real thumping, which I like.

Speaker 4 (45:57):
So I want to go back to something John said
about the court deciding that this was not an appropriate
exercise of executive power. For Trump to be not a delegation,
but for Trump to be deciding that terrorists were the
way to handle fentanyl and the other the other bad

(46:22):
things that happened when you have an unlimited immigration You
made a comment, So I was telling Steve before he
came on. I've been listening to some of our old
podcasts I'm actually listening for something specific, but you in
December tenth, I believe it was. You came on back
in the day before it was the genuine three whiskey

(46:43):
happy hour, and one of the arguments you made was
a very good one, was that there are lots of
things that the court, in this case, the Supreme Court
decides that they just simply do not have the expertise
to be deciding, and that generally speaking political issues, that's
not their round. They shouldn't be deciding this. And this
seems to me very much along the same lines as

(47:06):
what does the Trade Court, the Trade Court know about
the dangers of fentanel crossing the border due to illegal immigration,
and whether or not that is something that Trump has
the judgment to be able to say, yeah, I consider
this an emergency. That would seem to me to be

(47:27):
also an area of criticism.

Speaker 5 (47:31):
For the court.

Speaker 4 (47:31):
Then that's not their area of expertise.

Speaker 5 (47:34):
Right Am? I making any sense?

Speaker 4 (47:35):
John?

Speaker 1 (47:37):
No? I think that's the major reason why courts have
been so reluctant to ever interfere in foreign affairs questions,
And again you see very little respect for that in
this judicial decision. How is the court supposed to know
what's a threat to national security and what's not. How
do they get well, but even the second question is
how does a court know? This is what the court

(47:58):
really hung its it's decision on how does the court
know what we'll deal with quote unquote the national security problem?
Is it tariff's I mean, does a court say, no,
you have to send people to the border with guns?
That would mean when we would believe you. So that's
the other question is how does a court know not
just what's the threat, but the proper way to deal

(48:19):
with it. Let's go ahead, see start.

Speaker 2 (48:21):
Well, look, I mean, you know Alexander Hamilton and Marshall
would Bill snort at this opinion for just that reason.
I mean, what's the Hamilton's great lines in the Federalists
and elsewhere about. You know, when you have a legitimate end,
then the means follow to it. And so to say, well,
you know you can declare that fentanyls a national emergency
seems to me a court can't say no, it's not,

(48:41):
but they said instead was. But tariffs aren't the effective
means for dealing with that. That is not a decision
under the purview of a court. If we're going to
say the president can determine a national emergency, then I
think any means available, a lawful means to the president,
no court can get in the way of It's the
separate question, I think is whether tariffs as an economic

(49:03):
policy or as a regulation of commercial policy, can be
delegated to the president. And I'm not sure I think
about that. I mean, Curtis Right and Scheckter are kind
of separate questions. They both involve commerce. Curtis Right for
listeners who don't know it, and I always have to
refresh my memory. Involved an embargo that Congress enacted but
delegated discretion to the president about how to enforce an

(49:26):
arms embargo against Uruguay or somebody who's having a war,
and Curtis Right sued saying Congress can't delegate that kind
of commercial regulatory power to president. The court said, oh,
yes you can, because the president is, that famous phrase,
the sole organ of foreign policy. So let's take it
back and restate it. If tariffs are a matter of
foreign policy, then I think Trump's on very solid ground.

(49:49):
If it's a matter of economic policy and purely trade policy,
I think less so. But I think this decision as
bad as this has made it likely that Trump's going
to win the legal battle over this ago. I'm not
sure I would have said that.

Speaker 1 (50:02):
Can I ask you both before we turn to our
last subject, which is a special treat for listeners, which
is going to theory at all? Oh, we ran out
of time. I ask you both. Is this a winning
is this still? Does this still continue? I mean continue
might be the wrong word. Is this a winning issue
for Trump? This whole tariff war? Because one thing people

(50:25):
uh so already the stories are appearing saying, oh this
actually this decision gives Trump a back door out of
a losing political battle. Because I think one thing that
decision would say, and I actually I think people could
not complain about this from either side, is if you said,
at the very least, I allows to allows you to
target a single country, and so what if this all

(50:47):
turns into a tariff war with China? Right? And that?
And that's really something you can do in Darie. But
Trump could say, Okay, well, I'm just going to keep
tariffs on China high, and keep them high on the
European Union, and I have to drop them on everybody else,
you know, Senegal and the Puffins in Iceland or whatever.

(51:08):
Find theo's aren't that important?

Speaker 2 (51:10):
Right?

Speaker 4 (51:12):
Hasn't that been the point all along? Is if there
is a grand strategy behind this, it's not necessarily to
punish every ally and sub ally or whatever you want
to call it across the world, but actually to get
everybody on the same page regarding China. And you know,
I mean, I actually think that Trump has been doing

(51:34):
pretty well in this whole tariff thing lately, that they're
coming closer and closer. So the stock market fell drastically
on Liberation excuse me, Liberation Day, and then every time Trump,
even somebody from the Trump administration even talks to a
European ally or something like that about easing the tariffs,

(51:56):
the stock market goes crazy. So you know, it's I
don't see Trump ever having lost anything on this whole
tariff matter. I think he's going to come out on
top regardless. But I think his goal is China.

Speaker 2 (52:13):
I think it's high risk but high reward. Let's sort
of step back a man. And by the way, I
think there's a parallel here with our first topic about
Harvard trying to play nice on trade for what the
last forty to fifty years hasn't worked very well. We
try to play nice and we make very little progress
on it. And so Trump is doing to the world
trading system what he's doing to Harvard a two by

(52:33):
four across the head. Now, I say it's high risk,
and it's creating a lot of volatility. Volatility is usually bad.
On the other hand, here again, I'm going to go
back to one of my grand historical analogies just to
annoy Lucretia. You know, if you go back to Roosevelt
the New Deal, a lot of his measures are struck down.
We've already mentioned the Checkter case with a National Recovery

(52:54):
Act and other cases like that, and his policies were inconsistent, incoherent, unstable, unsound,
counterproductive by the way, right, I mean, I think the
increasing opinion of economic historians that most of the New
Deal lengthened the depression. On the other hand, what was
the result of that, The New Deal Coalition was more
popular than ever and was cemented in place for years.

(53:15):
That's where I'm sitting here, thinking that, you know, Trump
may be onto something here. It may be a roller
coaster ride, but at the end of all this, I
think he may succeed in reshaping the political economy of
our own country in the world. China's just one part
of that, I think, Lucretia, I think it's a I
think there's a broader game of foot here that's actually
more coherent, although unorthodox and unpredictable. And by the way,

(53:38):
that's why I also think to put a political point
that Republicans may not pay a price in the elections
next year, just as Roosevelt in nineteen thirty four, the
Democrats had big gains in the off year election, one
of the rare times that's ever happened, and that's because
people said, well, we don't know what's going on, but
there's something different here, and we kind of like the
looks of things and that vibe, a vibe shift. I

(54:01):
love the way we sail that right. More can we
said about all that? But we're we're getting close to
the end of our time.

Speaker 1 (54:07):
I think, yes, I listen, loyal listeners, if you made
it to the end, I'm sorry. Our actual original game plans,
we were going to spend half the episode talking about
Steve and Lucretia's view that there's no such thing as
political theory, which I would love to talk about. Hopefully
we're going to talk about next episode or one of

(54:29):
our summer episodes, but for now we have actually hit
an hour just talking about beating up on Harvard and
beating up on China. I mean, we could spend hours
at that, or or testing Steve's knowledge of exports to
the United States from other obscure, tiny, you know, North
Atlantic countries.

Speaker 4 (54:47):
We didn't even talk about how the Democratic Party is
going to woo you masculine men, you too, I know, yes,
by this incredibly big fat Mexican lesbian, bisexual, asexual woman
is leading the charge.

Speaker 5 (55:07):
She knows men.

Speaker 2 (55:08):
It's worse than that, John, I can't believe I missed
the story. Save it for next week.

Speaker 5 (55:14):
We'll save it.

Speaker 4 (55:15):
But when it does, allow me to make a few
Babylon be headlines.

Speaker 1 (55:20):
Yes, go ahead, the creature Babylon b headlines.

Speaker 4 (55:22):
So California unveil's massive new escape room called California.

Speaker 5 (55:29):
You gotta like that one. We didn't talk about this either.

Speaker 4 (55:32):
Biden Macrone team up to form support group for battered
and abused world leaders didn't.

Speaker 1 (55:41):
I did not get that until I looked up what
I was talking about and I saw that video. Of
his wife punching him in the face. That was unbelievable.

Speaker 4 (55:49):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, who knows that whole relationship, That whole
thing is just as weird as it comes. I'm sorry,
she's what twenty five years older.

Speaker 2 (55:59):
Than he is.

Speaker 1 (56:01):
I don't know if it's that sposed to have a
good right jab Yeah, yeah, this.

Speaker 5 (56:06):
One's for you.

Speaker 4 (56:07):
John, South African president says skulls of murdered white farmers
just Halloween decorations.

Speaker 1 (56:17):
The Christian I have been having an exchange the South
African ambush. We should post it maybe, I don't know.
It's been fun.

Speaker 4 (56:24):
If we got a little more serious about it, it
might be fun. Okay, I almost done. American students unsure
who to cheat off of after Trump revokes Chinese student visas.

Speaker 2 (56:38):
I love that's pretty good.

Speaker 4 (56:40):
I thought you wouldn't so I could use that since
I brought it up. It's a picture of Pete Booty
whatever his name is, uh with a beard, and it
says DEM's unveiled plan to win back men by having
gay guy grow a beard. Finally, how how Swarming House

(57:01):
because Steve loves these how Swarming Party kicks off with
land acknowledgement for the Johnson's who had lived there since
twenty nineteen. Oh yeah, you have to think that one through. Sorry, Okay,
I'm done.

Speaker 1 (57:19):
Great, Well, let me close the show with always Drink
your Whiskey, Meat and Steve, what is the latest Ai
hallucinogenic home Haikou?

Speaker 2 (57:29):
Well? I asked Ai first because of where I am
for some Norse epic poetry versions, and boy did I
get some great ones. So here's just one stanza of
what it's going to be weeks of great material, and
it goes as follows, harken ye hall dwellers, to horns
filled with fire, as I sing of three warriors, bold
in desire, not for blood, not for blade, nor for

(57:52):
Odin's dread mte, but for whiskey and laughter and podcasting.

Speaker 3 (57:57):
Right, that was pretty that.

Speaker 2 (58:28):
Ricochet join the conversation