The Whisky Happy Hour: Lucretia's List of the Five Dumbest Ideas

One of Lucretia's favorite epithets is "that's the dumbest idea," so we decided to put her on the spot and demand a list of "Lucretia's Top Five Dumbest Ideas" for this episode, but not before a thorough dissection of the issues involved with Thursday's Supreme Court oral argument about the conjunction of birthright citizenship and the plague of nationwide injunctions against executive branch actions by a single judge out in the hinterlands somewhere. 

You can tell the New York Times is worried, because they ran a major feature on Thursday about how the thesis that birthright citizenship might not have a solid foundation in the 14th Amendment is a "fringe theory." And yet here we are. Listen in for a reference to how this Supreme Court issue resembles the rebel alliance against the Evil Empire in Star Wars.

Next week: John Yoo's five axioms of Supreme Court jurisprudence. One of them involves a certains statute that cannot be named on this podcast.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Well, whiskey, come and take my pain, the money, my ry,
oh whiskey. Why think alone when you can drink it
all in with Ricochet's three whiskey Happy Hour, Join your bartenders,
Steve Hayward, John U and the international woman of Mystery
Lucretia where the lapped it up and David, ain't you

(00:27):
easy on the should tap out a giving and let
that whiskey blow. It's the three whiskey Happy Hour. And
if ever there was a week that needed some strong drink,
it was this one. Confusion at the Supreme Court, confusion
in Congress, confusion maybe overseas. And we're gonna unpack that
in a couple of specific issues today with John U

(00:50):
coming to us from some undisclosed location in the desert. Hi,
John Mine, Well, I would say it's a Lucretia at
her usual undisclosed location in the desert.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
Yeah, this is It's it's Phoenix, I mean, but it
could be any dessert. But I've I have our troop
behind enemy lines and I'm now operating in Lucretia territory,
and now I can see why she's so bitter and
angry all the time. There's no water, there's no food.
It's just dirt, dirt and sand.

Speaker 3 (01:21):
That would put me.

Speaker 2 (01:21):
In a bad mood every day too, especially if Steve
Hayward are around, who's enjoying the fruits of the hamburgers
and states he's constantly posting on Facebook while he sits
on the cliffs over the Pacific Ocean.

Speaker 3 (01:32):
Well, now I understand the relationship. At last.

Speaker 1 (01:35):
I'm going to come to food presently, John, but let
me just give a roadmap for listeners today. We're going
to talk a little bit about the Supreme Court oral
argument on birthright citizenship, but really the nationwide injunction problem.
Then second, this is a challenge that we gave to
Lucretia last week. She used one of her favorite phrases,
which was, that's the dumbest idea. And I thought, you know,

(01:58):
I think listeners should be treated to Lucretia's top five
dumbest ideas. And that's our second segment today, and then
if we have time, our third segment will be going
back to the classroom to sort out John used endless
confusion about the problems of political philosophy, and we'll see
if we have time for that. But I'll just say, John,
since you mentioned food. Some listeners sent me an interesting

(02:20):
item this week. That's now I've mislaid on my computer.
But it's why is the McRib only available intermittently? And
the answer I got was, well, they only roll it
out when pork prices are cheap, and then.

Speaker 2 (02:34):
The technics these are lies, lies, lies by communists I buy.

Speaker 4 (02:43):
I buy pork loins, you know, the big pork loin
in a bag, and cook it for my dogs to
eat because it's cheaper than dog food.

Speaker 2 (02:54):
Well, well this is yet another reason I'm moving in
with Lucretia.

Speaker 4 (02:58):
Well, it's funny, we say, because I.

Speaker 3 (03:02):
Know I cook it.

Speaker 4 (03:03):
I cook it in my insta pot, you know, pressure cooker.
I cook rice. And then I don't meal prep for me,
but I mail prep for my dogs. And it's rice
and usually I usually use beef stock and pork. And
if you just put a little soy sauce in it,
which I don't do for the.

Speaker 3 (03:23):
Oh man, I'm standying really friendry.

Speaker 4 (03:25):
Now, yeah, yeah, you could eat it very easily.

Speaker 2 (03:28):
If you If you add English muffin, you've just got
a McDonald's breakfast.

Speaker 3 (03:32):
There.

Speaker 1 (03:33):
It's all so good. Well, I may be able to
top both of you, although Lucretia will deny it. But
I make my own pork sausage, reckless sausage. I have
this like this, this eight oh, I love it. I
have this like eighty pound nuclear powered meat grinder, and
so I get you know, belly and port heloin and some.

Speaker 2 (03:51):
Is why you guys are so you are your mag
of people.

Speaker 3 (03:55):
You do not understand that if it's a free trade, you.

Speaker 2 (03:58):
Gotta let McDonald's specialize in this and buy from the
people who know what they're doing instead of trying to
be a little all tarking and making everything yourselves a home.

Speaker 4 (04:07):
Well, John, you're young and healthy. You can afford to
eat that poison the morning.

Speaker 1 (04:15):
You know.

Speaker 4 (04:16):
I don't think McDonald's is that bad, but I don't
eat anything processed anymore if I can avoid it, so.

Speaker 1 (04:22):
Well, you know, all right. My last comment on this point, John,
is you do remind me a bit of my late
great mentor M. Stanton Evans, who, when he decided in
retirement to move out to the countryside, moved to Leesburg, Virginia.
Why because there was a roy Rogers fast food outlet,
two of them, one on either side of town. Thereby,
as he put it, offering him variety in his dietary choices.

Speaker 3 (04:47):
I love rogers, you don't.

Speaker 1 (04:49):
I know. I used to love it too when they
had more of them around a million years ago. But
all right, let's turn to the news.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (04:58):
You know, we were we were all anticipating with bated
breath or whatever you say, the Supreme Court oral argument
on birthright citizenship combined with the universal injunctions by district
court judges. I listened to the whole argument yesterday morning.
I have to say I won't say it was disappointed,
but my summary statement about it is ninety five percent

(05:21):
of the argument. My rough estimate was really about the
question of universal injunctions by district court judges, and very
I guess we did. I did think I'll come back
to this. I did think Justice Kagan gave away the
whole game with her very indignant outburst about I'm paraphrasing here,
why are you bringing us this case. I can't believe
you'd come to us with this case to challenge the

(05:43):
universal injunctions. And I thought, oh, that's precisely why they
did it. They want to go after the birthright citizenship
case and the universal injunctions at its sort of weakest moment,
because even I think Kagan betrays that these universal injunctions
are problematic. So let's start with you, John, did you
get chance to listen to it or review it?

Speaker 2 (06:02):
I listened to different excerpts, and I read a lot
of the content. I mean, it's I agree with these, Steve.
I think, well, first of all, we should realize that
the Trump administration only asked for the Court to review
universal injunctions or nationwide injunctions. They actually said, you don't
have to eat birthright citizenship. But that doesn't mean it
won't get to the court. It's just going to get
to the Court next year, just just not right now.

Speaker 1 (06:26):
Not according to.

Speaker 4 (06:26):
One justice, it might not and then what happens.

Speaker 2 (06:30):
Sorry, no, no, no, you know, but we should we
should recognize, as you know, the front page of the
New York Times yesterday gave the Claremont Institute the ultimate
shout out. They said that the Claremont Institute took this idea,
what they called a fringe idea acted by Claremont Institute scholars,

(06:51):
and it named your teacher Ed Earler and John Eastman
and Michael Anton, among others, and transformed it was an
academic idea into real policy to the point where it's
having a real effect and is actually the subject of
a Supreme Court case yesterday. I mean, that's I disagree,
but that's a remarkable right, that's remarkable tribute to how

(07:15):
you Kook's got in charge national government. But yeah, you know,
more seriously, on the question of nationwide injunctions, I think
actually that's a really serious, important separation of powers issue.
And let me just briefly explain why it calls upon
us to think about Lincoln again and his response to

(07:36):
dred Scott, and I wrote a piece about this yesterday
at the Civitas Outlook website. And so a lot of
the argument, which I think is properly so, is about
our federal court's going beyond their limit in the Constitution
that they only decide cases or controversies if they go
beyond the people who are in the courtroom and start

(07:57):
saying and the government as a whole has to issue
passports to everyone born in the country, or the government
as a whole has to give social security numbers to
everyone born in the country, not just the people in
the courtroom. Have they gone beyond the limit on their
power to decide cases. The Superport doesn't have the power
of judicial review over everything. It just happens to have

(08:20):
the power judicial review when they decide a case, and
they have to choose the Constitution.

Speaker 3 (08:25):
Over a law or an executive order.

Speaker 2 (08:28):
But that actually raises us and the Clermont people thought
about this, written about it like you guys have talked
about is it actually raises this deeper question that was
first and not first, but most sharply presented by Lincoln
who said, I don't agree with dred Scott. I will
hand dred Scott over to his former master when the

(08:50):
Court says I have to in the case of dread
Scott itself. But then he said, I will not apply
the logic of the court to any other future case.
So I'm not going to go out, Lincoln said, and find,
you know, free blacks or escape slaves and return them
to their masters. I'm not going to go out and
end freedom for blacks in the North or in the territories.

(09:13):
The Court has to decide the case one by one.
That's probably the most extreme claim of presidential power to
interpret the Constitution and conflict with the part of history.
But imagine if nation wide injunctions existed in eighteen sixty one.
Lincoln would be wrong, right. If nationwide injunctions were really constitutional,
then presidents like Lincoln could not make that claim right.

(09:35):
The nationwide in junction essentially says, no, Lincoln.

Speaker 3 (09:37):
You're wrong.

Speaker 2 (09:38):
You have to go out and now find freed slaves
or find free blacks in the North and return them
to their master. That's lurking behind this issue of nationwide junctions.
I have to say, I, you know, Steve, did I
review the transcript of the or I didn't see that
issue come up clearly?

Speaker 3 (09:55):
But that's really the issue.

Speaker 1 (09:57):
Oh it did, but power let lucrease you out.

Speaker 4 (10:01):
Because John has mentioned this before. It's it's a very
interesting important point. But as the non lawyer, I want
to put a slightly different spin on it and see
what John thinks about it. First of all, so Lincoln
did in fact say that, But what the Supreme Court
did in dread Scott was to issue an interpretation of

(10:22):
the Constitution and guarantee a certain set of rights to
the slave owners. That you know, the Fifth Amendment due
process clause protects their right to property and take that.
You know, the due process means they can take their
property where they want. So the Missouri Compromise is ruled unconstitutional.
So that's the the practical political outcome of the Supreme

(10:46):
Court case. Now, you're right when Lincoln says, yeah, that's fine,
But it doesn't mean that that's the practical political outcome
of this case. It really doesn't. Dread Scott's still a slave. Fine,
but it does not overturn He doesn't say this specifically,
but what he means is it doesn't overturn the Miseri Compromise,
and it doesn't guarantee the right to property to slave

(11:08):
owners to take their slaves wherever they want. The reason
I say that significant, John a little bit off topic,
but I still think important to mention is that when
it comes down to it, it's that interpretation by Lincoln
that leads ultimately to the Civil War. And here's why
I say that. It's because Lincoln refuses to recognize the

(11:31):
right to property that the South now claims is in
the Constitution as expressed by the Supreme Court. When Lincoln says,
I don't have any intention of doing X, Y or Z,
I just don't want to see the spread of it,
the South turns back and says no, no, no, no, no. You've
already said you don't believe that slave owners have a
right to take their slaves wherever and have that property protected,

(11:56):
because that's what you said about the dread Scott case,
and so it has a really important political implication causes
the Civil War in some ways. I mean, you know
that's a little bit overblown. But my point is, very
quickly after that, Lincoln's interpretation basically goes into the dust
bin of history, right, I mean, because you have the

(12:18):
series of really bad Supreme Court cases that many people
find welcome, and so you have a growing acceptance of
the idea that, yes, in fact, what the Supreme Court
says is not just between parties in a case the case,
actual case and controversy before them. But you now see

(12:41):
this much greater tendency of the Court to issue rulings
that declare laws unconstitutional or that interpret those laws. And
that was not necessarily a practice sanctioned by the political
situation in the United States until after the Civil War.
Does that make sense what I'm trying to say there?

Speaker 3 (13:02):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (13:02):
No, I very much agree with you that the view
in dred Scott Motor by Justice Chief Justice Tawny and
the regime we're living under now is one of judicial supremacy,
where everyone assumes the Supreme Court gets to interpret the
Constitution as a final matter. And you're quite right, Lucratie.
I think as a matter of original understanding and the

(13:25):
political system, until maybe the nineteen seventies or sixties, I
think everyone knew that the three branches all got to
interpret the Constitution, and that no one of them was
superior to the other.

Speaker 1 (13:40):
I think this is I.

Speaker 3 (13:41):
Think Lincoln says this right.

Speaker 2 (13:43):
Lincoln says in this discussion at dred Scott, he says, look,
most of the time, we do want to follow the
Supreme Court's opinion. It's too disruptive to, you know, reltigate
everything or keep questioning it. But he's that phrase right,
he says, But if we just accept their decisions on
the most important questions, then we don't have a democrat.
We're not making where you know, the people are not
governing themselves anymore in a democratic fashion.

Speaker 1 (14:05):
Well, you know, I thought I heard yesterday. I think
it might have been Alito saying, off hand, so are
we in a Cooper versus Aaron situation here? That's the
famous case in nineteen fifty eight. It says the Constitution
is what the Supreme Court says it is. That was
one of the you know, the great overreaches of the
War in court era, Right, And I don't remember the answered.
I thought that's interesting.

Speaker 3 (14:26):
Coopers. Yeah, I don't think yesterday. No, I didn't get answer.

Speaker 1 (14:30):
Well, because I don't think it's a good question. Yeah,
it's not.

Speaker 3 (14:33):
It wasn't a question. It wasn't a Cooper is different.
So Cooper, we're marry.

Speaker 2 (14:38):
Right, Cooper is about could states claim we get to
interpret the Constitution too?

Speaker 3 (14:43):
And we think Brown is wrong? And Cooper went too far.

Speaker 2 (14:46):
Cooper could have just said the federal government interpretation of
the Constitution has to be superior to states. Cooper rejected
the Kentucky essentially.

Speaker 1 (14:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (14:58):
Yeah, well, but Hooper is wrong.

Speaker 2 (15:00):
If it's claiming, oh, the Supreme Court is superior, So
what justice alito?

Speaker 3 (15:03):
Citizens?

Speaker 2 (15:04):
But you can't say this is is this a US
versus Nixon problem because it's Nixon. It's a Watergate tapes
case where the Court really says, for the first time,
we get to interpret the Constitution and we're superior to
President Nixon.

Speaker 1 (15:18):
Yeah, let me say, you can't say.

Speaker 2 (15:20):
That because that means you're gonna any time you cite
Nixon for anything, you're gonna lose.

Speaker 1 (15:23):
Yeah, John Hughes first rule of Supreme Court ures prudence.
We're going to make you do your rules someday instead
of to go along with Lucretia's. I've dumbest ideas anyone,
Either one of you have a concluding comment.

Speaker 4 (15:43):
Can I change back to the oral arguments a little bit?
I think that the Court gets into really bad territory
on these issues, John, when they start looking at the
practical consequences of their decision, and that I think that
probably annoyed me more than anything, the kind of comments about, well,
what if we don't allow these universal injunctions, you might

(16:06):
have different things happen all throughout the country, which of
course is what you already anyway, But that's to be saying, Oh,
and what about the poor people in the meantime who
might be the victim of some really terrible presidential decision.
Our constitution provides for that, and that I mean those

(16:27):
same people, of course weren't worried about all the really
objectionable things that Biden administration did. Leave that aside, but
our constitution provides for it. We could go back to
Lincoln for a moment and say, you know what, the
Constitution doesn't give so much power to the president that
there's really much to be worried about, a danger to
be worried about, because within four years they can get

(16:50):
rid of the people can unelect him, and quite frankly,
Congress can impeach them. That's supposed to be the political
check on on the president overstepping his powers, overstepping his
executive discretion. And the idea that somehow the courts have
to save classes of people. I thought that was a

(17:12):
dumb thing. Even to say, what about class action suits
to save classes of people from executive overreach? Just severely misunderstands,
in my opinion, the separation of powers and checks and balances.
That's not the court's job. It's those are political questions,
except for the rights of a person in front of
a judge, that's what do. Process is not a universal

(17:34):
injunction that puts classes of people all together and decides
we know better than the executive Department or the president
on what should be done in a particular case. Right,
I mean, am I making sense?

Speaker 3 (17:45):
No?

Speaker 1 (17:45):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (17:45):
I think this is actually I think an interesting difference
between I think the logic of a philosopher or political science.
I know you guys don't say you're political scientists.

Speaker 3 (17:56):
And I'm going to get to this later, political theory
versus philosophy. What is it theference?

Speaker 2 (18:00):
Really, it's like the difference between a well, like a
double quarter pounder and a two quarter pounders put together.

Speaker 3 (18:05):
I mean, so, but look here there's a difference in logic.

Speaker 2 (18:09):
So that's why I think it's obvious that the majority
is going to strike down this nationwide injunction. So, if
you're a lawyer, you've decided that nationwide injunctions are unconstitutional
for the very reasons that Lucretia.

Speaker 1 (18:22):
Just set out.

Speaker 2 (18:23):
The first thing you're going to do is not say, okay,
we've decided the basic principles A, so let's go do
B and C, because they logically follow. The first thing
a lawyer does is what's the limiting principle on that theory? Right,
So the first thing they go to is, well, let's
think then of the worst thing that the president can do.
And right like so Kagan said, I think, suppose a

(18:43):
president decides to take everyone's guns away, and the violation
of the second Amendment. Does that mean every single gun
owner has to sue the president to get their gun back?

Speaker 1 (18:51):
Right?

Speaker 2 (18:52):
So that's that's how you lawyers think. The first thing
we do is we test our principle by thinking of
the extreme hypotheticals at the farthest mark to say, and
it's actually in the law, considered a defect of your
argument if you can't find, if you can't say, and
here's its limit, here's where of course, I think philosophers
like you guys like to say, Okay, here's the basic principle.

(19:13):
Let's just you know, then reason through all the things
we get to do or we do because of that
basic principle, and you don't think of the limiting idea
till the very end.

Speaker 4 (19:24):
That makes a lot of sense. I do want to
just put an offhand comment about the idea that a
liberal justice would use the Second Amendment and confiscating guns
as an example, because I don't think there's a gun
owner in the world who thinks that their judges are
going to save them when presidents or you know, whomever
decide to come and take their guns. Guess what's going

(19:46):
to save them. They're guns, and that's the purpose of
the Second Amendment, which is what made me laugh when
I know that she was sort of pandering to this too. Conservatives. Look, conservatives,
this could happen to you as well. But what what
a misunderstanding of what the Second Amendment is all about? Right?
I mean, I hate to be quite that foundational about it,

(20:08):
but that's really the point. That's why we have the
Second Amendment, not so that the courts can predict us,
but so that if it ever really becomes that problematic,
that people have the means to take uh, predicting their
rights into their own hands.

Speaker 1 (20:21):
Yeah, they're not taking the extreme scenario quite far enough there.
All right, let's get out though with a lightning round
questions with very short answers. My prediction is, and I'll
get each of yours, is that they're not the Court's
not going to reach birthright citizenship in this case. They're
just going to treat the universal injunction by district court
judges problem. And what do you think? I think there's
probably five votes there to put some limits on it. John.

Speaker 4 (20:44):
I'll let John finish because he's the expert.

Speaker 3 (20:48):
No.

Speaker 2 (20:48):
No, I agree, I think they're going to reach, not
reach birthright. Yeah, birthright citizenship will be back. I mean,
if you strike down nationwide injunctions, these three district judges
in Seattle, Boss and I think Maryland, they still get
to block the executive order only in their court, you know,
in the jurisdiction of their courts.

Speaker 3 (21:06):
So it back next year.

Speaker 1 (21:08):
In other words, wait.

Speaker 4 (21:09):
Wait, wait, wait wait. I don't know why you guys
keep talking about it as if you expected it. They
did not even ask the quest in this case. They
did not make the arguments to strike down birth the
right citizenship. So why why is that a prediction that's
a certainty.

Speaker 3 (21:25):
Oh no, I mean the court could still.

Speaker 2 (21:27):
I mean, the court's not limited by the Trump administration's request.
I think since we're talking about Lincoln, I mean the
best example of this is dred Scott itself.

Speaker 3 (21:36):
And dred Scott.

Speaker 2 (21:37):
The legal question was just is dred Scott a citizen?
Because I had to do with the jurisdiction for the
you know, for the nerds out there like me about
law had to do with diversity jurisdiction require which requires
citizens from different states, and so. But Andani answered that question,
and then he went ahead anyway and decided the bigger

(21:59):
constitutional question of whether blacks could ever be citizens.

Speaker 1 (22:02):
Right.

Speaker 2 (22:03):
Well, I think when the court does this, it's you know,
when courts do that, I think it's often a mistake.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
Well, my observation of Crease is that from some of
the a meekest briefs I gather from people who read
through them, is that the left really wanted to try
and force the issue in this case because they thought
quicker is better for them, Which is why I conclude
by saying, if it turns out the way we think,
obi Wan Eastman will say, if you strike me down now,
I should only be more powerful than ever next year.

Speaker 4 (22:30):
Oh my god, I'm not as confident as you guys
are on this universal injunction thing because I don't trust
some of the stupid comments made by Cavanaugh and Amy
Coney Barrett as usual are really they make me very nervous,
and there aren't enough votes unless Roberts is on this side.

(22:50):
He was fairly quiet unless he convinces that I'm not
confident about.

Speaker 2 (22:56):
Okay, I think I see this gives I think this
gives Roberts actually the opportunity for a little you guys
favorite word, statesmanship, because he can hand the Trump administration
a win, which he should hand them anyway on the merits.
Lift this uh track judicial activism, which is strangling I
think is really strangling a lot of the Trump administration agenda.

Speaker 3 (23:19):
In the courts.

Speaker 2 (23:20):
You know, free up all the other nationwide injunctions that
are limiting right suspending cuts and reduction of force and
agency elimination, and punt off the birthright citizenship issue to
a time when they're less the courts are less under
political attack. It's who would want to who would want
to do the opposite? It makes no sense from a

(23:42):
judicial relations with the other branches perspective.

Speaker 1 (23:45):
All right, well, speaking of stupid possibilities, we're going to
turn shortly to Lucretia's five dumbest ideas. After these messages
from our sponsors. Well, we're back, and I think I've
already said that last week Lucretia used one of her

(24:06):
frequent formulas, which I thought is so good that we
ought to do this officially. She said that something was
the dumbest idea, the superb dumbest, and so I thought,
you know, we got a lot of dumb ideas, and
I thought we ought to treat listeners to Lucretia's top
five dumbest ideas, so lucretia go.

Speaker 4 (24:24):
Okay, so some of them are fairly Monday, and I'm
going to go through them quickly. I want to say
the first one was a grad speech at the graduation
speech at NYU where the dumb ass excuse me turned
into speech.

Speaker 3 (24:41):
Ok.

Speaker 4 (24:42):
I have to tell you that at my college convocation
we had three student speakers, to undergraduates and a graduate
student and they were phenomenal, and of course we make
them turn them in first they go into the script.
At New York University, a student and in a speech
and then gave an entirely different speech with the usual

(25:04):
crap about genocide and Gaza and isn't that But this
time around New York University pulled his diploma And so
there's a dumb idea. Yep, not on university's part. But
it's good to see colleges and universities actually showing a

(25:24):
little bit of spine on some of these things. Go ahead,
seek well.

Speaker 1 (25:27):
Can I mention that on the other end of the
scale of a dumb idea related is Claremont McKenna College
had booked Salmon Rushti as their commencement speaker, and you'll
never guess what happened next, Complaints from Arab students and
care and the usual groups. So Salmon Rushti has withdrawn.
So I don't know who their commencement speaker is going

(25:47):
to be. But CMC should have told them all to
go pound sand and welcome Rushti with open arms, and
they didn't because CMC is it's really no longer conservative college.
Let's just state that right now, that they have some
conservative faculty, good friends of ours, and that's it. It's
just as rotten as every place else now and they
proved it once again. Sorry about almost every place, almost
every place.

Speaker 4 (26:06):
Almost every place. We'll leave that for another day. So
my second one is, you guys had to love this,
and I think some of it's a bit of a
manufactured controversy, but I don't mind. And that's a dumb,
dumb James Comy, just like the most despicable worm on
the planet. Before this, he decides to post a picture

(26:31):
of shells that have been arranged on the beach that
say eighty six forty seven, and I'm sure he put
them there himself. I don't. I doubt very much that
shells stay on the beach that long. And my experience
with the beach, but either way, he posted it on
Instagram and made some silly comment about what an interesting

(26:52):
shell formation I saw on the beach, and then as head,
the chief law enforcement officer is the entire country for
how many years, claimed that he had simply no idea
that eighty six forty seven might be associated with violence?
Do you guys know what eighty six means?

Speaker 1 (27:12):
Yes? Of course.

Speaker 4 (27:13):
Does anybody not know what eighty six means?

Speaker 1 (27:16):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (27:16):
Eighty six is actually wondering why eighty six came to mean.

Speaker 4 (27:19):
You know, I actually don't know either, but but you
know that it does, right.

Speaker 3 (27:24):
Oh yeah, and.

Speaker 4 (27:27):
Steve, what are you making that face for? No see it, folks.
But he's confused or anything or something. Well, it's coming
out of his head.

Speaker 3 (27:35):
Usually Steve thinks he is confused.

Speaker 1 (27:38):
Yes, I mean, I know I was. I was puzzling
too about that. My hunch is is that the number
was some kind of coding, maybe by law enforcement fifty
or eighty or years ago, and it sort of stuck
or broke out into popular culture. I don't know this,
but I've long known it's or Agent eighty six from
Get Smart. But I don't think that's it. But you know,

(27:59):
the I have has been trying for the last several
years to make something about what is it the number six,
what's the what's the letter what's the order of the
letter H and the alphabet? And they're saying anytime some
on the right uses the numbers at fourteen, is that
where H appears? That's code for Hitler. I mean, that's
how hard they work on some of these things. So, oh,
you haven't seen this notes, You can find us on

(28:21):
the internet.

Speaker 3 (28:22):
That sounds like Lewis Firecans numerology.

Speaker 1 (28:25):
Yes, exactly right. Was his seventeen or nineteen? Yeah, no,
call me. He shodn't no better. That's a real dodge.
But I will mention that, you know, he's probably going
to try and say even if he did know what
it meant, he was just making a joke. He didn't
really mean it. He means we need to quote unquote
kill off the excesses of the Trump administration. I do
recall a year or so ago, a little later than that,

(28:47):
John mcworterer, who's you know, he's a liberal, but he
descends from left orthodoxy and he let fly on Glenn
Lowry's podcast. Well you know, maybe a h Trump though,
and maybe somebody ought to just assassinate Trump, and then
somebody did try to assassinate Trump, and mcwater put it.
To his credit, he apologized, retracted, said I never should
have said that. That was reckless. I still hate Trump,

(29:09):
but I shouldn't have said that that was bad. Call
me out a man up and do that, I think,
and he won't.

Speaker 4 (29:14):
Tolly hasn't never manned up to anything.

Speaker 2 (29:17):
So the whole I mean, I think it just shows
comy is so strangely infantile. Yeah, yeah, that's It's not
the way a former FBI director should conduct himself.

Speaker 3 (29:30):
He's trying to be like, bizarrely cute. It's weird.

Speaker 2 (29:33):
It's weird because well, the other is it cute with
the left bizarre?

Speaker 4 (29:39):
No, he's the other theory is he's just trying to
get a lot of press because he has a book
coming out on Tony May. But even still, you know,
I am not one of those people that believes that,
you know, you know, when they accuse Sarah Palin of
uh being responsible for Gabby Gifford's death because she put

(30:00):
targets on something, Oh, I've always despised those kinds of
arguments when they come from the left, and the left
uses them much more often, and they are rarely on
the left actually genuine. Whereas you know, the shooting of
the members of Congress at the baseball game, the fact

(30:21):
that Trump has been, you know, subject twice to an
assassination attempt, at least twice that we know. So there's
actually some reason to believe that there's so many crazy
people on the left who hate Trump that maybe you
ought to be a little more careful because there's a
lot more of a likelihood that something dumb like Comy
saying that might have an impact. But I kind of

(30:41):
doubt it. I mean, I don't think that words, sticks
and stones will break my bones, but words can never
hurt me. That's my theory about these things. I wish
everybody would stop, but if the left is going to
do it, we should, and they should prosecute Comy to
the full extent of the walk. Okay, thatund's dumb. Told
you it was a dumb idea. I think this is

(31:02):
the dumbest idea ever, John, But this is number three,
R three, number three, number three. Sorry, it's not the
dumbest idea ever, but it's one of the dumbest, because
I've got so many dumbest that it doesn't make sense anymore.
I do know what a superlative means. The argument being
made by the fat ugly judged from Wisconsin why she

(31:24):
should have her case dismissed is because she has judicial
immunity relying upon the case they gave Trump presidential immunity.
Have you heard that yet? It just came out, I
think yesterday, and I will say that the reason I
think it's dumbest, there's a very big reason why presidential

(31:45):
immunity is different from judicial immunity. I think presidential immunity
comes from the notion that his enemies will go after
him if he and try to call things, you know, illegal,
like they did to Trump. Course judicial immunity, I think
judges should have immunity from their decisions, but not from

(32:06):
their legal actions when they're not acting as a judge.
Does that make sense?

Speaker 1 (32:11):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (32:12):
But what do you think about my dumbest idea?

Speaker 1 (32:16):
Well?

Speaker 2 (32:18):
I don't yeah, no, no, I'm not. I'm just wondering
why it's one of the dumbest. It is a dumb idea,
but there are lots of dumb ideas, But this claim
of traditional immunity. I don't think the claim traditional immunity
works because if it's true.

Speaker 3 (32:33):
Why are you just applying to judges.

Speaker 2 (32:34):
Why don't police officers get immunity from violating federal law too?
Why don't state legislators get immunity? Or so, first is
why do judges get some special immunity from violating federal law?
And then it's like, you know, they can ask like, well,
how far does immunity go? Suppose she had decided to
take the guy and hide him in her house. What

(32:55):
if she decided to give the guy money so she
could have he could escape?

Speaker 3 (32:59):
Right? So how much farther can immunity go?

Speaker 2 (33:01):
And then the last thing again this is classic you
know lawyers saying, what's the limiting principles? Does she get
to violate all federal law? Why is it just the
immigration laws that she disagrees with that she gets to
violate and claim some kind of munity.

Speaker 3 (33:13):
This is the problem.

Speaker 2 (33:15):
No state official has immunity from violating federal law.

Speaker 3 (33:19):
If you read the fourteenth Amendment, it's aimed at state.

Speaker 2 (33:22):
Officers because they were the ones who were violating federal
constitutional rights with impunity before the Civil War, right, because
the Bill of Rights didn't apply to state officials and
only applied to the federal government.

Speaker 3 (33:36):
And so that's why slavery. Slavery flourished because you had
state officials throughout.

Speaker 2 (33:41):
The South violating You guys are gonna love this the
fundamental natural rights of blacks, right. So the whole point
of the Reconstruction Amendments was to subject.

Speaker 3 (33:50):
State governments and the officials to the Bill of Rights.

Speaker 1 (33:54):
What point of clarification, John is pretty so far Lucretia
is just giving us that the much ideas this week.

Speaker 4 (34:06):
I don't know I time to together, but can I
just say so. One of the things that a few
of my students have figured out over the years is
that I have an ability when a student asks a
question in the class, and it's a really dumb question,
to take the question, turn it around, actually make it

(34:27):
sound like a they were intelligent for asking it, and
be turn it into a question that's actually worth answering.
Can I just say that that the reason I love
John being on this podcast is because whenever I make
some lame, half hearted attempt at some kind of legal
principle or legal argument, John takes it and turns it
around and makes it sound like I'm brilliant, and I

(34:48):
do appreciate that, John, even though no it's not true.

Speaker 2 (34:53):
I just it just makes me worry what you would
have ever done if you'd actually gone out.

Speaker 3 (34:58):
And got a law degree. Geez, the legal system would
never have recovered.

Speaker 1 (35:03):
I have this. I have this distinct memory from back
when we were graduate students and we're talking to some
liberal student who was talking about, oh, I think I
want to go to the law go to law school
to learn about constitutional law, to which Lucretius said, you remember,
I think you said if you want to learn about
the constitution, law school is the last place you should
go to learn about it at all. I filed that

(35:23):
away for future use because I think that's true.

Speaker 2 (35:25):
Yeah, I had this just another story about on your point,
Steve is and Lucretia's point is when I I so,
I my great colleague Jesse Choper have one of the
big case books in the field, and I said town,
you know, and I said, where's the constitution?

Speaker 3 (35:41):
Constitution you like this? Appendix A of.

Speaker 2 (35:44):
The case book was the biographies of the justices right,
and Appendix B was the text of the Constitution. I
was like, Jesse, how can the Constitution be appendix B,
And he said, the course is about constitutional law, it's
not a course about the Constitution.

Speaker 1 (35:58):
Well can I had a footnote to that if you
go back to Attorney General Ed Mease in the eighties
launching the fight about original intent. H One of the
one of the points he made in some of the
speeches was about Larry Tribe's best selling constitutional law casebook.
It did not have the Constitution in it. Well, the
next edition did because it was such an obvious embarrassment.

(36:19):
It's the same argument, Well this is this is about
constitutional law, not the Constitution. So they didn't even have
the text of the Constitution in the book, which is amazing.
Which okay, more to one point.

Speaker 2 (36:29):
Can I tell one love? Can I tell one more story?
And you should totally cut it out of the podcast
if you don't like it. But as you know, there's
a difference between original intent and original understanding. Yes, and
so when we started the originalist revolution, he kept using
the phrase original intent. You know, what did the drafters
of the constitution mean? Not what was the public meaning?

(36:51):
How by those who ratified it. So I was just
at this event at the Heritage Foundation and there's a
book out about Nice and the originalist movement by Steve
Brazy and Gary Lawson, and they told this great story.
They said it started to turn because I had this
big conference close to the press at the Justice Department,
and they asked Intonin Scalia, who's then a judge on

(37:13):
the d C Circuit, to give a speech. And I
don't think there's a copy of this speech in the
public record, but they said. Scalia got up and he said,
I got to tell you, guys, this original tent thing
is raw. You really should be asking what is original understanding,
not original intent? And then they said, six weeks later

(37:34):
he was nominated to the Supreme Court. What a great story, right, Yeah,
I've never heard that story before and I didn't know, right,
But and then they said, that's when you know. It
shows you you know, someone can have a real impact.
But that's when they said the debate started to turn.
Was that speech, that DOJ conference and then Scalia's elevation.

Speaker 1 (37:56):
There's a lot to be said about that whole issue
original intent understanding, but we should make a whole separate
show about that, because otherwise we won't get to dumbest idea.
Number four.

Speaker 4 (38:08):
Dumbest and I just, okay, guys, this is not fair
because I just realized that I have the five dumbest ideas,
but it doesn't include the really dumbest idea that we
want to kind of end our discussion with. So I've
got to pick. And since I have already hinted to
these guys about that, it's going to involve the Episcopal Church.
And I thought that was only fair since you know,

(38:30):
Steve used to be an Episcopalian and John still is,
and we spent so much time last week talking about
Catholicism and the Pope. The least I could do is
bring up the other main church. That's not fair, but
as the original Protestant Church, shall we say, I should
do equal time. So the dumbest idea of the week

(38:54):
from the Episcopal Church is so the Episcopal Church has
been recent settling refugees, in many cases getting billions of dollars,
in fact, getting fifty billion dollars from the Biden administration
to resettle refugees during during the four years of the
Biden administration. They are no longer going to have that

(39:21):
relationship with the federal government because why because the federal
government is resettling those fifty seven Africanners, those white Africaners.
And let's see in light of our church.

Speaker 1 (39:33):
So what did I say, just africaners from South Africa.
Oh okay, some listeners might not necessarily know.

Speaker 4 (39:41):
It's kaa n e rs fat in light. This is
what the this is what the Episcopalian Churches press release said,
in light of our church's steadfast commitment to racial justice
and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church

(40:02):
of South Southern Africa, we are not able to take
this step, and they are entirely ending their resettlement partnership
with the US government.

Speaker 1 (40:13):
Yeah. Well, first of all, I thought you were just
gonna say the Episcopal Church was a dumb idea full stop.

Speaker 2 (40:21):
Right.

Speaker 1 (40:23):
The upside is they're going to say, the taxpayer some money.
I think most people don't know that. I mean, Catholic
charity just gets hundreds of millions of dollars in the
federal government. I don't think it's billions the Episcopal Church gets,
but it's a lot of money, you know, one hundreds do.

Speaker 4 (40:35):
I say fifty billion? Sayty millions?

Speaker 2 (40:38):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (40:38):
I think that's well. Oh yeah, my eyes cleans over numbers. Yeah,
it isn't wasn't that revealing? I mean I could go
on for a long time here and make you know,
heckel John about the perfectly of the Episcopal Church, which
goes back decades, right. But you know, the South African
government of all people put out a state that was

(41:00):
quite astounding because it's said, I pull up here for
you guys to say. One of the things they said
was well, these people shouldn't have left. And the actual
language in the letter was they quoting here they flee
not from persecution, but from justice, equality and accountability for
historic privilege. What does that mean? Accountability? That means we

(41:21):
want you here to be persecuted and throw in jail
and have your property something something right. But here's the
fun part. Issued by the African National Congress and has
three signatories and one of them is a media communications
person whose name on the letter I'm not making this
up is mon Galiso Stalin, Conzo Stalin's and quotation marks.

(41:44):
He actually wants his middle name to be styled Stalin
because I don't think that's his actual name. Gee, that's
reassuring for people staying behind in South Africa. I mean
it's unbelievable. And yeah, it's fun to watch the left
freaking out about allowing you know, white people to apply
for microant or asylum status.

Speaker 4 (42:06):
So well, and the good news is that they don't
need in many cases. The Episcopalian churches help reselling like
all of the Third World. I really quickly because I
see John has something to say. But I had a
student who actually worked for a refugee resettlement nonprofit a

(42:26):
few years back, and you know, she she was wholeheartedly,
you know, this was a life dream of hers to do.
She thought it was incredibly important for social justice and
all this kind of stuff. But she used to complain,
she's I have to show these people how to use toilets,
and I have to you know, I get them in
an apartment and I have to show them how to

(42:50):
get indoors. I mean, she was just going on and
on about how incredibly ill prepared for civilized society these
refugees often were, and she was talking about it, you know,
being very soft hearted and so on. And I took
it entirely differently, of course, like what the hell are
we bringing people like that here for and resettling them?
But anyway, John, yourself no, I mean, I.

Speaker 2 (43:15):
You know again, this is like, this is the worst,
because look, I've been listening to you guys for years
and years about how Hope Francis was so terrible compared
to the way the majority of Catholics would want, uh,
you know, one policy set. So maybe church leadership and
bureaucracies are terrible no matter which religion you go. I mean,

(43:36):
maybe Steve's gonna claim, oh no, no, the Eastern Orthodox
Church has a truly enlightened leadership. Although you know, you
look at what the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches are
saying about their war. I don't know what Steve thinks
about Actually I've never heard what Steve thinks about that. That
would be interesting. But I'll just say that, well, church
is no worse than anybody else. We just shouldn't have

(43:57):
these enormously power are powerful, peacelely bureaucracies of work.

Speaker 1 (44:03):
I'll just say in one sentence that the Ukrainian and
Russian Orthodox Churches are very dodgy and have been for
a long time. But the Episcopal churches problem is they're
very politicized. It have been for a long time. The
classic article is way back in Harper's magazine in nineteen
seventy eight by the great Berkeley eminence Paul Seabury, a
descendant of the original Bishop Seabury by the way, from

(44:24):
the time of Revolution. And the article is called Trendier
than Thou. I just I think that's a classic title,
and it was.

Speaker 3 (44:32):
At post that you got to post that.

Speaker 1 (44:35):
I'll try and find it. It was a great article
in anyway, Just.

Speaker 4 (44:39):
One comment before we go to break Steve, and that
is that another parallel you might find between the Catholic
Church and at least the Episcopal Church is that because
they're both you know, long standing, very solid. They're not
a fly by night sort of weird Protestant denomination. So they,

(44:59):
you know, the world w faiths in many cases and
in both cases. I don't know about South Africa specifically,
but in both cases the African Church, Episcopal Church and
Catholic Church is growing. It's in a revival, it's in
a resurgence, and it's conservative. The people in South I

(45:23):
should say, in African nations who are and the and
the leadership who are either Episcopal or Catholic, are much
more solid and much more sound than what we find
in the Western eies. Secularized versions of the Catholic and
Episcopal Church here in America. In many cases, that's just

(45:43):
I think it's interesting. I just don't know about South
Africa specifically.

Speaker 1 (45:48):
All Right, well, all right, before we get to number
five on Lucretia's list of the top dumbest ideas, let's
pause briefly to hear from our sponsors. All Right, we
now reached the climax of Lucretia's list of the five

(46:09):
dumbest ideas. Whether this one is for this week also
or whether it's more general, you can tell us right now.

Speaker 4 (46:17):
Well, it's both, Steve, and first we have to start
off with Trump's speech in Saudi Arabia this past week.
And you know, we don't even have time, we won't
have time today to go into all the possibilities, pitfalls,
and so forth of Trump's diplomacy in the Middle East

(46:38):
this last week. But his one speech is really quite
I think compelling in many ways. And that was a
speech where, sorry, John, basically he called out you neocons
for ruining the world. And let me quote for just
a moment from his speech. He says, first of all,
that without nation building, he says, before our very eyes.

(47:01):
A new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts,
entire divisions of the past, and forging a future where
the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos, where
people of different nations, religions, creeds are building cities together,
not bombing each other out of existence. He goes on,
and then he says, in the end, the so called

(47:23):
nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and
the interventionists were intervening in conflex societies that they didn't
understand themselves. They told you how to do it, but
they had no idea how to do it themselves. Peace, prosperity,
and progress came not from a radical rejection of your heritage,
speaking to the Saudi Arabians, but rather from embracing your

(47:45):
national traditions and that same heritage you love so dearly.
So John, are you guys? Are you and your fellow neocons,
you original gangsticon that you are responsible for the mess
that is say Afghanistan, responsible for the mess that is
South Africa, Responsible for the mess that is a Raq Syria.

(48:10):
You know we could go on and on and on.
Are you responsible for that? Because you thought you could
bring your your make the world Safe for democracy, Wilsonian
principles to the entire world. Well, first, is that the
dumbest idea ever?

Speaker 2 (48:27):
No, I really don't. I think that for so First
of all, Trump was attacking the very.

Speaker 3 (48:32):
Idea of it, not just in the Middle East, I think.

Speaker 2 (48:34):
But he says, right, you know whatever, century wide, and
so I would say, if you expanded the scope out
to nineteen forty five to today, I think he's wrong.
I think actually a lot of the stability and prosperity
of the last right, eighty years now it's yeah, exactly

(48:54):
eighty years has been because of the reconstruction of Germany,
the reconstruction of hand, the spread of democracy you know,
to play you know, all over the world, and free
markets too. It did fail in the Middle East, it
doesn't work everywhere that I think. I think it's completely
fair to say it was a mistake applied to Iraq,

(49:14):
it was a mistake applied to Afghanistan. You know, this
model that we could take nations and you know, make
them more like us.

Speaker 3 (49:21):
But it has worked elsewhere. I mean, we saved Western Europe, we.

Speaker 2 (49:26):
Stopped the Soviet Union because of Neo conservative a lot
of the I mean, we have a lot of prosperous
democracies in the world that it came about because they
were fostered by the United States and this view. So
I think he's right about the Middle East, though I agree.
I agree, and I'm not saying I actually ever supported

(49:47):
the idea of it for the Middle East. I mean
I was in the government idea I you know, as
I think I've said. You know, my view in two
thousand and three, and I left the government shortly after
making this view known was that.

Speaker 3 (49:58):
We should just let the Iraqi generals take over.

Speaker 2 (50:00):
Yeah, and let the Afghani warlords who were on our
site takeover. That we couldn't remake them. That we have
to have consciousness of the limits on these ideas. But
I do think they worked elsewhere to the great benefit
of art of the United States. Well, wid it was
great for the world, but it was great for our
security too.

Speaker 4 (50:18):
Well.

Speaker 1 (50:19):
Two or three quick observations. One is, it's one thing
to say, and by the way, this was the Claremont position,
Clarmont Institute position at least Charles Kester and the Claremont
Review of Books twenty years ago, which was it's one
thing to do a punitive rate on these countries for
their complicity in nine to eleven in the case of
Afghanistan and maybe Iraq. But what you do is you

(50:39):
go in, take out the regime and say, okay, you
clean it up, and if you misbehave, we'll be back.
But that's not what we did. We decided to occupy
it and build democracies and all the rest of that.
I think the lesson it's lost. And actually even George
Will back around two thousand and three two thousand and four,
was saying this is very unconservative to think you can
build democracies in this country. I remember people saying, well, gosh,

(51:00):
we did it in Japan and Germany, forgetting the first
rule of Aristotle's politics is you build a polity on
material that you've got. You had political traditions of democracy
attenuated as they were in both Japan and Germany. You
never had any such thing in the Middle East. And
I think you could create it by building a billion
dollar embassy in Baghdad was sheer folly. So I think

(51:23):
what Trump is doing is, look, the neocons are down
right now, and he wanted to drive a stake through
their heart to really rub it in. But there's one
other point about this pro or con about what the
details of this trip and the deals and things he
said and lifting sanctions on Syria. Something missing from all
the commentary pro and con is that Trump is dealing

(51:45):
from a position of strength, and I don't mean traditional
military strength. We have been supplicants to the Middle East
for ever since the oil crises of the early seventies,
and we are not anymore. We're now the world's leading
oil producer an oil export. We don't need a drop
of their oil anymore. And so that means we can
go deal with them, not cap in hand saying oh,

(52:06):
please be nice because we want to keep your oil
flowing and keep it cheap. Instead, we can go in
now and say, okay, buy our airplanes. And who knows
what else is being talked about behind closed doors there.
I don't know, but I think this is a fun
And by the way, you have Trump to thank for
all that from his pro energy policies of the first
term that are continuing and expanding now. So it's a

(52:27):
different world. I think we've entered a new era, not
just because of repudiating the foolish parts of the neoconn
out look on the world but also because the economic
realities are different. Well, all right, we'd had a third
topic today, but we're not gonna have time enough to

(52:48):
do it adequately. I'll just do this placeholder. Last week,
John was teasing Lucretian I about, Ah, well caught you guys,
your political theorists. Don't you have a theory of international relations?
And we didn't defend ourselves adequately from the confusion and
defects of political theory. I think we want to take
this up in some detail, and we'll put it off
for a week, but I'll just mention as a placeholder

(53:10):
that Harry Jaffa talked about this once in one of
his memoirs that when he was attracted to or recruited
to come to Claremont Men's College then in the early sixties,
they wanted to become as the professor of political theory.
And he said no, no, And he'd written an article
about the case against political theory that we'll maybe mentioned briefly,
and he said, no, no, political philosophy. There's an important

(53:31):
difference that I think escaped you, John, or if not,
at least it gives us ning.

Speaker 3 (53:36):
I'm willing to be educated on things.

Speaker 1 (53:38):
Well, well, We just want to abuse you a little
bit about that, but stay tuned. It's actually quite important
and it gets back to some of our specific issues
on how you think through international relations and lots of
other things. So but with that, we will turn to
our usual exit strategies involving the Babylon b Lucretia.

Speaker 4 (53:56):
You've got something so many good ones you'll have to
stop me. So this was funny, not really apropos to
anything worrying. America is just as unprepared now for a
giant monkey climbing skyscrapers as we were in nineteen thirty three.
If you read, you know what I do all the
time about how unprepared we are for everything. Okay, this

(54:18):
one's a little silly, but amazing. James, amazing James.

Speaker 3 (54:21):
Come.

Speaker 4 (54:22):
He finds natural rock formations spelling out explode Trump's head
with a boomerang.

Speaker 1 (54:29):
Those right.

Speaker 4 (54:30):
Yeah, So this one's for you, John. It's a picture
of a Bible under a pew. It says Episcopalian's fine
strange old book hidden under pew.

Speaker 3 (54:42):
Haha.

Speaker 4 (54:44):
In honor of RFKS pretty amazing testimony last week before Congress,
RFK unveils new plan to end child obesity by chasing
fat kids with a stick. I saw that Democrats proposed
building wall to keep white immigrants out eight presidential bid

(55:10):
Gavin Newsom distances self from Gavin Newsom. I wanted to
include this, but I actually ran out a room. I
had too many to have just five dumbest ideas, and
I thought that would be carrying it too far if
I tried to go more. But I wanted to mention
how dumb it was of that reporter Jake Tapper to

(55:32):
after all of the actual receipts there are about him
covering up Biden's decline, writing a book where he chastises
the rest of the media and the Biden administration for
covering up Biden's decline. But this one has a picture
of Schumer. It says, furious Democrats demand to know who
was responsible for covering up Biden's decline.

Speaker 1 (55:57):
This is amazing thing to watch. I am popping lots
of extra popcorn this week to watch it.

Speaker 4 (56:03):
Probably should have included it, but it seems so obvious.
South Africa denounces white refugees for leaving before they have
a chance to kill them all, take all their stuff
and then kill them. Yeah, I know, it's just a brother.
It's really crazy. One last one, and then it's time

(56:24):
for us to move along. South Africa excited to achieve
on diversity once it gets rid of all the white people.

Speaker 1 (56:35):
Oh boy, yeah, that's sort of out there all right.

Speaker 4 (56:40):
Very last one, Jack Jake Tapper uncovers startling evidence that
Biden's decline was covered up by Jake Tapper.

Speaker 1 (56:50):
Right now, we gotta stop. You go on forever, John,
Get us the heck out of here.

Speaker 3 (56:56):
Well, always drinking with ski, meat and steam.

Speaker 1 (57:01):
Here is this week's AI generated poem for the three
Whiskey Happy Hour. Three glasses, three fate spun under the amber.
We are one. The hour ends but leaves its scar
three whiskey truths not lost, not far Bye bye everybody.

Speaker 3 (57:20):
Wow, that's damn good. That's damn good.

Speaker 4 (57:24):
Have you ever read any poetry?

Speaker 3 (57:26):
John Ricochet

Speaker 1 (58:00):
Join the conversation