Speaker 1: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask
Speaker 1: what you can do for your country.
Speaker 2: Mister gorbachaw tear down this wall.
Speaker 1: It's the Ricochet Podcast. Well Steve Hayward hosting this week
Speaker 1: along with Charles C. W. Cook and special guest Anny McCarthy,
Speaker 1: breaking down all the unrest on the streets and in
Speaker 1: the court room. Let's have ourselves a podcast.
Speaker 2: Look, it's very simple, not complicated.
Speaker 1: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 3: The increasing range of Iran's ballistic business would bring that
Speaker 3: nuclear likement to the cities of Europe and eventually to America. Remember,
Speaker 3: Iran calls Israel the small saple. It calls America the
Speaker 3: great sagem. Long live Israel and long live America.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Ricochet Podcast number seven hundred and forty five.
Speaker 1: It's Steve Hayward sitting in the host chair today while
Speaker 1: James is still away. Joined by and now one hundred
Speaker 1: percent recovered Charles C. W. Cook at his outpost in Florida.
Speaker 1: How are you today, Charles?
Speaker 4: I am.
Speaker 2: I'm doing well. Thankfully, There's nothing going on in the news,
Speaker 2: so I've been able to ease back into it.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I keep saying I've been saying for
Speaker 1: a while now that things happen so fast in Trump
Speaker 1: two that we're gonna need to measure in dog years.
Speaker 1: And doesn't the Trump Musk divorce feel like two years
Speaker 1: ago already?
Speaker 2: You know, I think to some extent reconcile. So we've
Speaker 2: been through a divorce and maybe a remarriage. It's like
Speaker 2: Richard Burton and Liz Taylor. I wonder how many times
Speaker 2: it will happen.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it may follow that same epicycle. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm actually still on holiday over in Europe, but so
Speaker 1: not keeping up moment by moment by the news. But
Speaker 1: like everyone else, I woke up early this morning here
Speaker 1: i head of most of you in America, of course,
Speaker 1: to see the news that Israel has, you know, dropped
Speaker 1: the dime, so to speak, on Iran in a big way.
Speaker 1: And I guess my first thought, Charles is you know,
Speaker 1: the left was starting to taunt Trump here a few
Speaker 1: weeks ago, saying he was what was the euphemism or
Speaker 1: the acronym, he was a taco person attack Taco. I'm
Speaker 1: guessing right now that Iran may have taken a Trump's
Speaker 1: war aversion too seriously, but they won't be celebrating Taco
Speaker 1: Tuesday this next week. Put it that way, right, Maybe
Speaker 1: that's too glib, but the point is, I did wonder.
Speaker 1: You know, there's ways of thinking that Trump didn't want
Speaker 1: them to do this, and did they do it without
Speaker 1: telling us? And you know these things have gone on.
Speaker 1: But then he released that very strong statement on truth
Speaker 1: social saying, look, I told him Ron that they had
Speaker 1: sixty days and today would be six day sixty one.
Speaker 1: That I meant it. And it looks to me like
Speaker 1: Trump didn't chicken out this time. Of course, they're not
Speaker 1: American forces committed to this, at least not yet.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 2: A few thoughts. The first is it was very odd
Speaker 2: that the Democrats picked up on that line of argument,
Speaker 2: given that they didn't want Trump to do the things
Speaker 2: he was doing, so they were taunting him for taking
Speaker 2: their position. Yeah, not a smart move in politics, especially
Speaker 2: with Trump on this in particular, though, Trump is an
Speaker 2: interesting figure in that there is a movement that has
Speaker 2: been built up around Trump that often projects onto Trump
Speaker 2: views that he doesn't actually hold and uses him to
Speaker 2: claim changes on the right that have not happened.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: There is a lot clearly that has changed with the
Speaker 2: arrival of Trump into the Republican Party, which is now
Speaker 2: a ten year phenomenon. But some of the time, for example,
Speaker 2: on economics, the claims that are made just aren't true.
Speaker 2: This idea that, wow, the Republican are no longer interested in,
Speaker 2: say tax cuts, Trump's here, Well they are, and it
Speaker 2: is never more pronounced than in the realm of foreign policy.
Speaker 2: It is true that Trump criticized the Iraq War, but
Speaker 2: there is a huge gap between the Iraq War and
Speaker 2: the vast majority of things that American presidents have done
Speaker 2: in the last thirty years. Iraq, in fact, is only
Speaker 2: notable because it was an aberration from the foreign policy
Speaker 2: that had surrounded it. And for some reason, some within
Speaker 2: the so called or supposed Trump faction have decided that
Speaker 2: he is an isolationist who would be opposed to ever
Speaker 2: deploying American troops, ever exerting American force. Well, he hasn't actually,
Speaker 2: in this case, had to do either of even those things.
Speaker 2: He's just had to say, yeah, Israel, go deal with Iran.
Speaker 2: Quite why there was this vehemence and assumption that he
Speaker 2: would be opposed to this, It was never quite clear
Speaker 2: to me. Clearly he is not. He has left some
Speaker 2: wiggle room in his rhetoric. Marco Ruby was clear to
Speaker 2: note that the Americans weren't involved. But this isn't out
Speaker 2: of character for Trump if you look at his first term,
Speaker 2: or if you look at the way that he sees
Speaker 2: the world, supporting Israel, doing America a favor, and of
Speaker 2: course doing Israel a great favor too. In taking out
Speaker 2: some of Iran's nuclear capabilities is classic Trump, surely.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, right, there was. I'm no expert on military capabilities,
Speaker 1: but I always thought that there was some doubt as
Speaker 1: to whether Israel could successfully attack Iran alone. I mean,
Speaker 1: people kept saying they need American help, they need least
Speaker 1: American intelligence and maybe a wax plans and I don't
Speaker 1: know what other, you know, practical logistical support along the way.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 1: And it appears that they did not eat any need
Speaker 1: any of that. They only needed our blessing. Uh. And
Speaker 1: now we'll see weapons and weapons, right, and That'sump said that, right,
Speaker 1: Look that we've got the best weapons, and we've given
Speaker 1: them a lot of them to Israel, and we're going
Speaker 1: to give them more. I mean, Trump sounds like he's
Speaker 1: all in on backing Israel on this.
Speaker 2: Well, it's in our interests for Iran not to have
Speaker 2: a nuke, and I think we can. I shouldn't assume
Speaker 2: we've become so deranged by Iraq that now even indirect
Speaker 2: help is cast us being a forever war. But surely
Speaker 2: we can acknowledge that Iran not having a nuclear weapon
Speaker 2: is good for America. Right, yeah, Well, we can debate
Speaker 2: how we do that, whether we should do it ourselves,
Speaker 2: whether we should support is, how much we should spend,
Speaker 2: whether there are risks, those are totally reasonable questions, But
Speaker 2: the goal, the end, the aim here of Iran not
Speaker 2: having a nuclear weapon surely is presumptively good.
Speaker 1: Right, yes, I think so, I will say, I do know, well,
Speaker 1: actually you know what, I will name names. You know,
Speaker 1: we had Dan McCarthy on the show here several weeks ago,
Speaker 1: and he was very stubborn. I mean, he did say,
Speaker 1: Israel can do it themselves, they don't need any help
Speaker 1: from us, and I thought, well, maybe that's true, but
Speaker 1: I'm not sure how. I don't know that. I don't
Speaker 1: know how you would know that. I like Dan, he's
Speaker 1: a pal, but he and there are other people like him,
Speaker 1: were very dug in that. Really it's none of our business.
Speaker 1: If it Ron has a bomb, it's not really a
Speaker 1: threat to us. And I think that there has been
Speaker 1: this effort by people like Dan, who I repeat I
Speaker 1: like very much, but I think is greatly mistaken here,
Speaker 1: along with others who are saying the same thing. And
Speaker 1: that's not even before you get into Tucker Carlson territory,
Speaker 1: which I don't want to get into.
Speaker 2: You mean you don't want to get into the topic,
Speaker 2: or you don't want to get into the territory he's occupied.
Speaker 1: Either one quarantine the non aggressor.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 2: I think Dan is wrong. I like him too. I
Speaker 2: do think it's important to us. I think as a
Speaker 2: threshold question, it is important to the United States who
Speaker 2: has nuclear weapons, and I don't think it matters where
Speaker 2: they are in the world. You cannot get far enough
Speaker 2: away and stay on Earth from nuclear weapons like it
Speaker 2: obviously affects US Iran. It's not even where Australia is
Speaker 2: in the world. You know, it's right next to a
Speaker 2: whole bunch of countries that affect us, whether they're allies
Speaker 2: or enemies, or we're just neutral towards them. We take
Speaker 2: that perfect theoretical Washingtonian stance. It matters, So I just
Speaker 2: I can't. I don't know if that is being used
Speaker 2: as a proxy for it is better on balance for
Speaker 2: us not to get involved, or it's better for them
Speaker 2: to get a nuclear bomb than it is for us
Speaker 2: to art or support a war. Sure, I can buy
Speaker 2: the argument, although I don't agree with it, but not
Speaker 2: to care. Come on, not to say it's not in
Speaker 2: our interest that that ship has sailed. That is just
Speaker 2: not There was a certain point in American history, I
Speaker 2: think where this sort of view made perfect sense. I mean,
Speaker 2: for example, although we weren't wholly unaffected by it, if
Speaker 2: you were an American president in eighteen twenty, the movement
Speaker 2: within the Habsburg Empire, they didn't actually matter that much, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, you could say plausibly, we don't care, but
Speaker 2: Iran nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: Come on, yeah, yeah, that's right. Yes, And they showing
Speaker 1: their question is well, let's switch gears here, back to
Speaker 1: the scene at home, and okay, so what we've got
Speaker 1: the resistance, the riots going on in Los Angeles and elsewhere,
Speaker 1: sounds like they might spread. It sounds like maybe some
Speaker 1: governors like Abbott will get out in front of it
Speaker 1: and stop it from starting. And then we have this
Speaker 1: crazy stunt with Senator Padilla in California. By the way,
Speaker 1: my theory as a native Californian who's watched the state
Speaker 1: slide into a one party socialist republic here in the
Speaker 1: last twenty twenty five years. The problem with Padilla and
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris and Newsom to some extent is they don't
Speaker 1: affect They don't face much effective Republican opposition, they don't
Speaker 1: face much serious media scrutiny, and so suddenly when things
Speaker 1: are running against them, they behave in these ridiculous ways
Speaker 1: like Senator Padia. Now we'll talk with Andy McCarthy in
Speaker 1: a few minutes about some of the legal aspects of this,
Speaker 1: But you and I are better at the politics of it.
Speaker 1: And it seems to me this disastrous politics for the Democrats,
Speaker 1: and I think some of their own polls are even
Speaker 1: perhaps showing this. What Mayor Bass said, this is all terrible.
Speaker 1: And then she declares a curfew. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: faster you can say bad opinion poll, she put in
Speaker 1: a curfew. So what's your sense of it from over
Speaker 1: the other side of the country.
Speaker 2: Wowuck, It pains me to say this, because, as you know,
Speaker 2: I'm a big lover of California. But your state's crazy. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's the most beautiful place in the world, run by
Speaker 2: terrible people who seem to think that they have a
Speaker 2: veto on federal law. And in any other context, Steve,
Speaker 2: this would be compared to the nullifiers of the past.
Speaker 2: They wouldn't be the heroes, they'd be the presumptive villains.
Speaker 2: You just don't get to stand in the way of
Speaker 2: legitimate federal functions because you don't like them any more
Speaker 2: than Florida would. I think that it has become clear
Speaker 2: within California that the view that I just outlined is
Speaker 2: the majority in the country, and that there is a
Speaker 2: great deal of downside to taking the stance that California has.
Speaker 2: It is not the case that Donald Trump is wildly popular.
Speaker 2: He's more popular than I thought he would be in
Speaker 2: his second term, but he's not wildly popular. But he
Speaker 2: is about twenty or thirty probably more popular than the Democrats,
Speaker 2: and especially on the question of immigration. The party looks
Speaker 2: absolutely crazy compared to Trump, and I think that some
Speaker 2: of the rhetorical backtracking that we've seen we can get
Speaker 2: to Perdilla separately, because he escalated, but from Mayor Bass
Speaker 2: from Gavin Newsom is the product of that they've recognized,
Speaker 2: and I've noticed a shift prior to that backtracking. Joe
Speaker 2: Biden was disgraceful in his refusal to enforce federal immigration law,
Speaker 2: an absolute historic disgrace, and he cost his party dearly.
Speaker 2: But he always pretended he was doing it. He always said, no, no,
Speaker 2: we are enforcing the border. And then later on he said,
Speaker 2: you know whose fault it is that the border is open.
Speaker 2: Republicans remember that stunt where they said that they needed
Speaker 2: more power from Congress, and of course that was nonsense,
Speaker 2: but Biden understood at least that he had to lie
Speaker 2: about it, and for a while Bass and Knewsome and
Speaker 2: Shift they didn't. They just came out openly said, look,
Speaker 2: we just don't believe that we should be enforcing this. Lord,
Speaker 2: it's terrible, we'll stop you. Paddia is still doing that,
Speaker 2: those guys are, which is probably the product of a
Speaker 2: shift in opinion. Pauling that United.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, you know, my mind runs back now to
Speaker 1: Biden's Secretary of Homeland Security, that despicable Mayorcus kept saying
Speaker 1: over and over again in congressional hearings the border is secure.
Speaker 1: I could not believe they thought they could say that
Speaker 1: with a straight face, right right, and yet they did.
Speaker 1: I say the other thing, that's funny you mentioned Mayor
Speaker 1: Basta claric curfew. If Gavin knew some filing legal pleadings
Speaker 1: about states rights and the Tenth Amendment. Trump has this
Speaker 1: way of turning everybody on their heads.
Speaker 5: Annoying.
Speaker 2: It's so annoying because in every circumstance where the authority
Speaker 2: of the states actually applies and the federal government is
Speaker 2: overreaching in a way that would have been totally alien
Speaker 2: to the founders and ready to everyone prior to the
Speaker 2: New Deal, California is wrong, California. But the second that
Speaker 2: it's something that is undisputably a federal function, there's suddenly
Speaker 2: all about the Tenth Amendment. It's like they can't be
Speaker 2: right even when they're trying right right.
Speaker 1: Well, I think the problem is that we're seeing in
Speaker 1: California and other Blue states what I call the senescence
Speaker 1: of modern liberalism. And we do have a cure for
Speaker 1: sinessence of modern liberal well maybe not modern liberalism, but
Speaker 1: least for us individuals. And it comes from our first
Speaker 1: sponsor today, Qualitias Analytic quality. A synalytic is at the
Speaker 1: frontier of what is currently possible in the science of
Speaker 1: human aging. Synalytics are a science field revolutionizing human aging.
Speaker 1: The big culprit behind that middle aged feeling can be
Speaker 1: sinessence cells otherwise known as zombie cells, that linger in
Speaker 1: your body after their useful function, wasting your energy and resources.
Speaker 1: The accumulation of zombie cells can lead less energy, slower
Speaker 1: workout recovery, joint discomfort, and basically just feeling old. Quality
Speaker 1: of Synalytics as a groundbreaking, clinically tested supplement with nine
Speaker 1: vegan plant derived compounds that help your body naturally eliminate
Speaker 1: sinessence cells, helping you feel years younger in just months.
Speaker 1: Here's how it works. You take it just two days
Speaker 1: a month, helping your body naturally eliminate zombie cells to
Speaker 1: age better at the cellular level. I know James has
Speaker 1: tried it and loves it, and you too can experience
Speaker 1: the science of feeling younger. Go to qualitylife dot com
Speaker 1: slash ricochet for up to fifty percent off your purchase
Speaker 1: and use code ricochet for additional fifteen percent. That's qualityolife
Speaker 1: dot com. That's spelled qua A la l I f
Speaker 1: equalitylife dot com slash Ricochet for an extra fifteen percent
Speaker 1: off your purchase your older self. Well, thank you, and
Speaker 1: we thank Qualitia for sponsoring this the Ricochet Podcast. And
Speaker 1: now we welcome back to the podcast our great friend
Speaker 1: Any McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute, a National
Speaker 1: Review contributing editor and author of Ball of Confusion, The
Speaker 1: Plot to Reagan Election and Destroy Presidency. Welcome Andy. Gosh.
Speaker 1: You know, as a lawyer, the Trump administration is keeping
Speaker 1: you busy trying to keep up with things.
Speaker 4: Boy, it's all overwhelming.
Speaker 5: I wrote something like I want to say three four
Speaker 5: days ago about the Khalil immigration case. I have a
Speaker 5: three quarters finished, and I can't get to it because
Speaker 5: it feels like every ten minutes something else happens and
Speaker 5: just overwhelms the news cycle.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, now we want to ask you first about
Speaker 1: the legal aspects of Trump calling up the California National Guard.
Speaker 1: And I'm overseas actually, and I haven't kept up with
Speaker 1: all the details, but I gather he's not yet invoked
Speaker 1: the Insurrection Act, which I guess is maybe the most
Speaker 1: clear statue to authorize that. But I think there are
Speaker 1: other means of doing it. What do you make of
Speaker 1: the scene so far of as Is there any problems
Speaker 1: with it? Are the criticisms from people like Governor Newsom
Speaker 1: have any validity? Or what's Anny McCarthy's always candid take
Speaker 1: on what Trump does here?
Speaker 5: Well, it's hard from you know, I'm on the East Coast.
Speaker 5: I'm watching the news just like everyone else's. I think
Speaker 5: it's hard when you read the conflicting reports, and particularly
Speaker 5: when you read Judge Briar's opinion in the California District Court,
Speaker 5: which made a ruling yesterday that the Ninth Circuit has
Speaker 5: suspended that Trump's invocation of the statute that he didn't folk,
Speaker 5: which is twelve four h six, that that was unlawful.
Speaker 5: We can get into why he said that, but one
Speaker 5: of the what he basically argues is that there is
Speaker 5: no rebellion and that there are you know, there's sporadic violence,
Speaker 5: but that there isn't as much violence as the administration suggests.
Speaker 5: And then, you know, you get a lot of pushback
Speaker 5: from the other side that at least in the places
Speaker 5: where the violence is happening, federal functions are not able
Speaker 5: to go forward.
Speaker 4: And even though the.
Speaker 5: People who are resisting the Trump administration and the immigration authorities.
Speaker 5: Even though they're not armed with firearms, there've been molotov cocktails,
Speaker 5: they've thrown objects that could be lethally dangerous at the police,
Speaker 5: they've boxed them in, they've made it impossible for them
Speaker 5: to inform or some laws. So it's difficult to get
Speaker 5: a read in part, I think, Steve, because Los Angeles
Speaker 5: is also huge. We're talking about not just Los Angeles
Speaker 5: the city, but Los Angeles County, which is just it's massive.
Speaker 5: So you know, there are many people in Los Angeles,
Speaker 5: I guess who can look out their windows and see
Speaker 5: that everything's fine and there is no violence, and there
Speaker 5: is no seemingly there's not a problem. But in the
Speaker 5: places where there has been there have been uprisings, they've
Speaker 5: been pretty intense. So there's that difficulty of getting a level,
Speaker 5: you know, getting a read on how violent things are,
Speaker 5: which I think is important because he's invoking rebellion and
Speaker 5: I think, you know, it used to be prior to
Speaker 5: January sixth if you threw around words like you know, sedition,
Speaker 5: insurrection and rebellion, those words had and we actually thought that,
Speaker 5: you know, you had to get to a certain level
Speaker 5: of uprising before invoking those sorts of things. I think,
Speaker 5: you know, the fact that they tagged a three and
Speaker 5: a half hour riot where none of the security forces
Speaker 5: were killed. There were a lot of injuries, but the
Speaker 5: damage to the facility was so minimal that Congress was
Speaker 5: able to reconvene that evening that nevertheless had to be
Speaker 5: because of political reasons and insurrection, and I think it
Speaker 5: kind of trivialized the concept, and now they want to
Speaker 5: have an exacting definition of rebellion after, you know, after
Speaker 5: we basically, you know, got rid of insurrections as something meaningful.
Speaker 5: So that's a big part of Judge Brier's opinion as well.
Speaker 5: But you do have to make a judgment about how
Speaker 5: serious the violence is if you're going to throw words
Speaker 5: like rebellion around, I still think that's true.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, one more quick question or point andy, before
Speaker 1: I turn you over to the tender mercies of Charlie. Look,
Speaker 1: I remember the Rodney King riots of nineteen ninety two,
Speaker 1: which people like Maxine Waters still very much with us,
Speaker 1: called a rebellion. I think she might even used the
Speaker 1: term insurrection by the way she was for it, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, at least the people who said January sixth
Speaker 1: was an insurrection for people who didn't like it. Okay,
Speaker 1: but it seems to me that again I've come up
Speaker 1: this from a political point of view more than a
Speaker 1: legal one. And one thing is is that, of course,
Speaker 1: the Rodney King riots and actually one of my earliest
Speaker 1: childhood memories growing up in Pasadena was seeing the distance
Speaker 1: smoke from the Watts riots in nineteen sixty five. I
Speaker 1: could go out in my front yard and see the
Speaker 1: smoke from a long way away and what was I
Speaker 1: nine years old or something, and thought, wow, this is
Speaker 1: really kind of scary. The point is that it seems
Speaker 1: to me there's an argument for saying, don't wait for
Speaker 1: it to spread all over to the city or to
Speaker 1: spread to five more places. You want to nip it
Speaker 1: in the bud. And and I mean, that's why it
Speaker 1: seems to me that at least the political logic and
Speaker 1: the moral logic is entirely on Trump's side.
Speaker 5: You know, it's interesting that you mentioned that because I've
Speaker 5: had occasion in the last couple of days Steve to
Speaker 5: talk about when I was I think eleven or twelve,
Speaker 5: Kent State happened and that's my powerful memory and it's
Speaker 5: every time we have a situation like this where we
Speaker 5: think about putting federal troops into a domestic situation, I
Speaker 5: can't help but go back to that, because to me,
Speaker 5: more than more than tet more than Tonkin Gulf, more
Speaker 5: than almost anything that happened in those years. I think
Speaker 5: the Kent State debacle in which four students were killed
Speaker 5: created the mythos about the Vietnam War as we remember
Speaker 5: it now. To me, because I was so young and impressionable,
Speaker 5: that's like the most powerful memory of that incident. And
Speaker 5: every time we have something like this happen, that's what
Speaker 5: I find myself.
Speaker 2: Going back to Andy, I have two related questions for you,
Speaker 2: and I hope you're sitting down because a very off
Speaker 2: brand for me. Number One, does Trump need a law here?
Speaker 2: Is there any inherent authority within the presidency to execute
Speaker 2: federal law and to defend those who are executing federal
Speaker 2: law from those who would resist? Two? Is this just disiible?
Speaker 2: I mean, I am the everything's just dieable guy. I
Speaker 2: tend to like courts. I tend to think in so
Speaker 2: many cases where people say that's non just dieuble, there's
Speaker 2: no real way of arbitrating unless you use the courts
Speaker 2: even in core constitutional questions involving the political branches. But
Speaker 2: this level of micromanagement surely at some point must become unsustainable.
Speaker 5: Both are great questions, and Judge Bryer wrestles with the
Speaker 5: justice ability, I don't think very convincingly, but he wrestles
Speaker 5: with it in his opinion. I think it's a useful
Speaker 5: example for this, Charlie is the Alien Enemies Act invocation,
Speaker 5: because a lot of that litigation has gone back to
Speaker 5: an opinion that Justice Frankfurter wrote in about a year
Speaker 5: after the actual shooting in the Second World War ended,
Speaker 5: where the president had invoked President Truman had invoked the
Speaker 5: Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 4: It had been.
Speaker 5: Invoked throughout the war, but the people who brought the
Speaker 5: lawsuit wanted to claim that there was no longer a
Speaker 5: declared war, that the state of war no longer obtained.
Speaker 5: And what frankfort basically said, and this gets the lines
Speaker 5: very blurry, I think, is that the court owes a
Speaker 5: lot of deference to presidential judgment because of the nature
Speaker 5: of what was being litigated there, but that courts are
Speaker 5: capable of interpreting statutory terms, and what the court there
Speaker 5: decided was that because Congress and the political branches together,
Speaker 5: Congress and the President had not acted in any way
Speaker 5: to end the declaration of war, and we're taking the
Speaker 5: position that the war was still ongoing even though it.
Speaker 4: Was nineteen forty six.
Speaker 5: The court was not going to.
Speaker 4: The second guess that.
Speaker 5: So they said that basically, they said, we have this
Speaker 5: statutory term, you have to be able to show that
Speaker 5: there is a declared war, but we're going to defer
Speaker 5: a great deal to the political branches about whether the
Speaker 5: declared war is still ongoing because they haven't attracted it.
Speaker 5: And then they said there are other things like that
Speaker 5: statue talks about aliens of the enemy force who are
Speaker 5: below the age of eight of fourteen. So they said
Speaker 5: that was something that a court can wrestle with because
Speaker 5: it's a bright.
Speaker 4: Line, easy yeah.
Speaker 5: And the other things that weren't in the statue or
Speaker 5: were not up for debate in that case was was
Speaker 5: there an invasion or a predatory incursion? And it does
Speaker 5: seem like in all of these cases and this controversy
Speaker 5: raises the same issues. There are always two questions. One
Speaker 5: is what's the objective test? That is, what is the
Speaker 5: thing that's in the statute that has to be established.
Speaker 5: And then secondly, who gets to decide? And I don't
Speaker 5: think the courts have been consistent on that. I think
Speaker 5: what they basically say is, since the statute is written
Speaker 5: in an objective way, in the sense that it doesn't
Speaker 5: say in the President's judgment, it just says, you know,
Speaker 5: insurrection or rebellion, the first thing is, you know, objectively speaking,
Speaker 5: is there reason to believe that that condition obtains? And
Speaker 5: that I think is one threshold. And then the second
Speaker 5: question becomes, if the president decides it obtains, then how
Speaker 5: much are we going to subject that to scrutiny? And
Speaker 5: one of interestingly, in the oral argument in California, one
Speaker 5: of the questions that Judge Briar pressed the Trump Justice
Speaker 5: Department on was what if President Trump, in order to
Speaker 5: invoke twelve four h six, had decided there was a rebellion.
Speaker 5: He had absolutely no evidence that there was a rebellion.
Speaker 5: He just on his own, ifsay Dixon, it's a rebellion,
Speaker 5: does a court have to accept that? The administration's position
Speaker 5: is that the court has to accept it. Briar's position
Speaker 5: is that the court doesn't have to accept it, so
Speaker 5: it seems to me there's not a.
Speaker 4: Good answer to your question.
Speaker 5: There's a lot of blurriness here, and it seems to
Speaker 5: me that there's there's again there's an initial threshold of
Speaker 5: can we agree that there are enough facts that it's
Speaker 5: at least plausible that the statutory term has been met,
Speaker 5: and then if it has how much difference do we
Speaker 5: of to the to the president to in terms of
Speaker 5: invoking it. So that's not a very satisfying answer, but
Speaker 5: I think that's where we're at in terms of whether
Speaker 5: the president needs the law at all. I think it
Speaker 5: depends on what it is the president wants to accomplish,
Speaker 5: because you have this crash, which I think also leads
Speaker 5: to some blurriness between the position that the Justice Department
Speaker 5: and the Office of Legal Counsel have taken historically, which
Speaker 5: I think is best articulated in this nineteen seventy one
Speaker 5: memo which was written by William Rehnquist when he was
Speaker 5: running OLC at the Justice Department, which talks about the
Speaker 5: protective function of the meaning the president's authority to use
Speaker 5: the military in order to carry out executive functions that
Speaker 5: are his lawful, legitimate functions. In the executive branch, and
Speaker 5: that crashes into POSI Coomatadis, which is enacted at the
Speaker 5: end of the toward the end of the nineteenth century
Speaker 5: and basically says that in the absence of a congressional
Speaker 5: authorization or something clear in the constitution, the president cannot
Speaker 5: use the military for domestic law enforcement functions. So it
Speaker 5: seems clear that if what the president is calling the
Speaker 5: military and to do is protect federal facilities like courthouses
Speaker 5: or federal buildings, the military can do that because that's
Speaker 5: not a law enforcement function. There's also authority for the
Speaker 5: proposition that if people are blocking, say.
Speaker 4: Facilities and interstate.
Speaker 5: Commerce like railroads or highways, and that were to prevent
Speaker 5: something like the mails from being delivered, the president could
Speaker 5: dispatch the military to open up those facilities to make
Speaker 5: sure that the mail could be delivered, and might in
Speaker 5: fact even be able to use the military forces to
Speaker 5: deliver the mail, because that's not a law enforcement function.
Speaker 5: I think where it gets tricky, and Rich asked me
Speaker 5: this yesterday about in the podcast. I'm less confident now
Speaker 5: than I was when I gave that answer, because I've
Speaker 5: looked a lot more into this since then. The question
Speaker 5: is what if the president you have these disruptions of
Speaker 5: the ability of the agents to enforce the immigration law,
Speaker 5: people blocking the places where they want to go in
Speaker 5: and do the raids, people trying to prevent the agents
Speaker 5: from getting it, people they want to place under.
Speaker 4: Arrest, that sort of thing.
Speaker 5: Can the president dispatch the military to protect the federal
Speaker 5: function of enforcing the immigration laws in a sanctuary city
Speaker 5: where the local law enforcement they're not allowed to obstruct,
Speaker 5: but they're not required to help the federal authorities, and
Speaker 5: where people are clearly obstructing that function. If it gets
Speaker 5: serious enough that the federal law enforcement people cannot carry
Speaker 5: out their duties, can you send the military along to
Speaker 5: protect them? And when does that evolve from a protective
Speaker 5: mission where you're basically making sure the agents are safe
Speaker 5: when they go about the duty of, say, arresting someone
Speaker 5: or carrying out a raid, or are the military guys
Speaker 5: actually doing law enforcement? Is that so close to the
Speaker 5: actual execution of the law that in the absence of
Speaker 5: congressional authorization, it's something that should be illegal. And I
Speaker 5: don't think that's been resolved. The more I look into it,
Speaker 5: the more I think it's a blurry line.
Speaker 1: Hey, I've got to interrupt here. Maybe you started your
Speaker 1: business because it was your passion, but fell into HR
Speaker 1: as your business got going. Nobody's an expert in all areas,
Speaker 1: including HR. That's why we're excited about an all in
Speaker 1: one solution that can give you your time back to do
Speaker 1: what you love most, which is growing your business. Bamboo
Speaker 1: HR is a powerful, yet flexible, all in one HR
Speaker 1: solution for your growing business. Stop spending countless hours on payroll,
Speaker 1: time tracking, benefits, performance management. With Bamboo HR, those hours
Speaker 1: are shaved down to minutes. And it's why over thirty
Speaker 1: four thousand companies trust Bamboo HR because it's an integrated
Speaker 1: system that is designed to handle your current and upcoming
Speaker 1: HR needs. Plus, bamboohr prides itself on being super easy,
Speaker 1: easy to use, easy to learn, easy to implement, and
Speaker 1: very easy to love. Bamboohr handles everything from hiring and
Speaker 1: onboarding to payroll and benefits. When business owners switch to
Speaker 1: Bamboo HR, the intuitive interface stands out Immediately take a
Speaker 1: couple minutes check out the free demo and see how
Speaker 1: nimble and affordable this valuable tool can be. HR is hard,
Speaker 1: but Bamboo HR is easy. I can't recommend bamboo hr enough.
Speaker 1: Check it out for yourself with a free demo at
Speaker 1: bamboohr dot com slash free demo. That's bamboo hr dot
Speaker 1: com slash free demo. And we thank bamboo hr for
Speaker 1: sponsoring this the Recochet podcast. Well, this seems to me
Speaker 1: a blurry line that a lot of modern trends have
Speaker 1: brought us to. I mean, I repair to a few
Speaker 1: simple things. First of all, curtis right case the president
Speaker 1: is the sole organ of foreign policy. Now you say
Speaker 1: this isn't a foreign policy question, except maybe it is
Speaker 1: in a certain way that I mean, the left says
Speaker 1: we should live in a world without borders. Well, guess
Speaker 1: what that means foreign policy is different. I'm sure I'm
Speaker 1: just using their argument against them for a moment. The
Speaker 1: other one is you mentioned Frankfurter. Was he the one
Speaker 1: who said the Constitution is not a suicide pact? Or
Speaker 1: was that Jackson? I don't remember Jackson, Robert jack Jackson, Right, okay,
Speaker 1: but that you know famous line of that same era
Speaker 1: of cases that you were invoking, And I don't know, Andy,
Speaker 1: I just get frustrated with trying to parse this out
Speaker 1: in legal terms. I guess here I'm a strong executive
Speaker 1: power man, and that the checks on him ultimately should
Speaker 1: be political and popular. But popular, I mean a sentiment
Speaker 1: of the American people and Congress is not without remedies
Speaker 1: available to it. I mean they're difficult. Impeachment takes time
Speaker 1: if you want to go to the most extreme one.
Speaker 1: But I don't know, this seems like I see, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm attacking your profession. I'm sorry, Andy, I can't help it.
Speaker 1: But as a constitutionalist rather than as a lawyer, and
Speaker 1: I know there's a blurred line there. I just get
Speaker 1: very frustrated with the way this always ends up in court,
Speaker 1: the way Topeville said all of our disputes we're gonna go.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there's a lot to that, you know. I always
Speaker 5: what I've found over the years, especially after working on
Speaker 5: national security cases instead of you know, my last ten
Speaker 5: years as a prosecutor, I did much more national security
Speaker 5: stuff than cops and robbers stuff. And what you really,
Speaker 5: I think, what the impression you come away with in
Speaker 5: a much more powerful way, is that we like to
Speaker 5: think of ourselves as a rule of law society, but
Speaker 5: we're a political society. The most important decisions that get
Speaker 5: made are political ones, and I think we delude ourselves
Speaker 5: sometimes into the actually they can't even with respect to
Speaker 5: the most important decisions that we might have to make
Speaker 5: for the protection of the country. You can't make antecedent
Speaker 5: and Hamilton recognized us right, because the threats to a
Speaker 5: country could be infinite. You can't make antecedent laws that
Speaker 5: bind the government in a way that they might not be,
Speaker 5: that the government might not be able to respond in
Speaker 5: a meaningful way to kinds of threats that you haven't anticipated.
Speaker 5: So I think the thing that's challenging about Trump's presidency,
Speaker 5: and I think this might be best seen in the
Speaker 5: in the immunity the argument, which you know, as time
Speaker 5: goes by, I actually think Charlie you noted, I think
Speaker 5: at the time when the when the Supreme Court made
Speaker 5: their decision about whether the president had immunity from criminal
Speaker 5: prosecution or not, which of course is not in the Constitution.
Speaker 5: But at the same time, I think everybody common sense
Speaker 5: wise knows that the president has to carry out certain
Speaker 5: particular executive functions and he can't be stopped from carrying
Speaker 5: them out by criminal statutes. So that's the that's the tension,
Speaker 5: and I think looking back on it, Justice Barrett has
Speaker 5: a much more modest take on that than the rest
Speaker 5: of the majority did. But the broader point I wanted
Speaker 5: to make about Trump is that we went two hundred
Speaker 5: and thirty years without having to have that sketched out
Speaker 5: in an apidictic way, because everybody kind of knew that
Speaker 5: there were these norms. You know that the president has
Speaker 5: to make very hard decisions and some of them are
Speaker 5: going to be legally dubious, and we can't have a
Speaker 5: situation where the next administration is going to come in
Speaker 5: and prosecute the president or what he did in the
Speaker 5: last administration unless it's so blatantly criminal that it can't
Speaker 5: be that its criminality can't be ignored, because you can't
Speaker 5: have a function in government that way. Right If the
Speaker 5: president has to worry about being prosecuted or civilly sued
Speaker 5: while he's making these decisions that are of great consequence
Speaker 5: of the country, the government can't function. We went two
Speaker 5: hundred and thirty years without a court having to to
Speaker 5: describe what the parameters are or at least grapple with them,
Speaker 5: because you know, we still don't really know exactly what
Speaker 5: the lines are even after that decision. But the thing
Speaker 5: is everything, there's a number of things Steve you talked about,
Speaker 5: you know, politics rather than law, and a lot of
Speaker 5: the important stuff that goes on and government is covered
Speaker 5: by norms more than laws because once people get into
Speaker 5: these once you get into an important government position, your
Speaker 5: bad calls are not going to be subject to criminal
Speaker 5: prosecution or civil suit. So what controls you to stay
Speaker 5: within the four corners of your authority is more norms
Speaker 5: than law. And I think we function that way fine
Speaker 5: for a very long time. But Trump, I think more
Speaker 5: than any of his predecessors. And this isn't to say
Speaker 5: he invented this. I just think he pushes it harder
Speaker 5: than the rest. But he finds the loose joints in
Speaker 5: the system and he pushes them. And I think, you know,
Speaker 5: I've had this argument with people who say he wants
Speaker 5: to be a dictator. You know, he's accumulating power to himself.
Speaker 5: I don't think he's got I don't think he's got
Speaker 5: a realistic idea that he's going to be president forever.
Speaker 5: I think he knows he's going to be president for
Speaker 5: four years. And I think in the current very paralyzed system,
Speaker 5: that we're in, he's basically got two years to get
Speaker 5: stuff done. He has no prayer of getting much statutory
Speaker 5: stuff done. And what he's trying to do is identify
Speaker 5: all the things that he can do unilaterally and push
Speaker 5: as hard as he can in the directions that he
Speaker 5: wants to take the country. And a lot of it
Speaker 5: looks like, you know, Charlie and I both talked about,
Speaker 5: you know, the pretextual use of emergencies in order to
Speaker 5: you know, to do things that a president shouldn't be
Speaker 5: able to do, essentially legislate. He's looking for all the
Speaker 5: things that he can do unilaterally, even if he needs
Speaker 5: a pretext to do it. And I don't know that
Speaker 5: we've ever had a president. I mean, we're only six
Speaker 5: months in and I feel exhausted trying to, you know,
Speaker 5: to watch him every day. But I don't know that
Speaker 5: we've ever had a president who tries to to push
Speaker 5: the outer limits of his authority so hard, so fast,
Speaker 5: to the point where now courts are being called in
Speaker 5: to try to draw lines, just like they did with
Speaker 5: the with the immunity. I think that's the stress on
Speaker 5: the system.
Speaker 2: Well, yes, but to what extent, andy is that stress
Speaker 2: also being created by the left, and I'm thinking the
Speaker 2: immunity case, the immunity case was created by law fair right.
Speaker 2: And then in this case. One of the problems here
Speaker 2: is that you have the governor of California is trying
Speaker 2: to subvert immigration law, or at least is on the
Speaker 2: side of those who are and maybe then Trump pushes
Speaker 2: it too far. But it seems that we have a
Speaker 2: perfect storm where you have one side pushes everything over
Speaker 2: and then Trump says, oh, well, I'm going to push
Speaker 2: it over in the other direction, and then we expect
Speaker 2: the courts to fix this Or Am I just being
Speaker 2: two partisan?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 4: I don't think so.
Speaker 5: I think, you know, law fair is complicated because the
Speaker 5: most preposterous case or cases are like the New York cases,
Speaker 5: you know, Bragg's case. I don't think, you know, I
Speaker 5: looked at this very closely for a long time. I
Speaker 5: didn't agree with Jack Smith's, especially the J six case,
Speaker 5: because I think he was stretching statutes to the limit
Speaker 5: to try to criminalize what Trump did. But you know,
Speaker 5: I was in the Justice Department for a long time.
Speaker 5: There's no way that an attack on the capital of
Speaker 5: the kind that happened on January sixth would not have
Speaker 5: been investigated as a as a criminal event. And even
Speaker 5: if we quibble of whether the statutes that were stretched
Speaker 5: the way they were applied to what Trump did, there's
Speaker 5: no question that Trump did appalling things on January sixth
Speaker 5: and the run up to it, which would have justified
Speaker 5: at least investigating him, right. And then the Florida thing,
Speaker 5: I think that was you know, you can argue about
Speaker 5: whether they should have brought it criminally or not, but
Speaker 5: that's there was definitely conduct that was involved there. You know,
Speaker 5: did they overdo it, Yes, they overdid it. And was
Speaker 5: there a coordinated strategy in order to bring cases at
Speaker 5: a particular time that would hit in the run up
Speaker 5: to the election. There absolutely was, But it's just it's complicated.
Speaker 5: I think the sanctuary city stuff is much more on
Speaker 5: point for what we're talking about, because, you know, if
Speaker 5: you look at what Judge Bryer wrote, he wrote a
Speaker 5: thirty six page opinion, which means he must have he
Speaker 5: had to start writing at the minute he got the case.
Speaker 5: But you know, there's nothing in that opinion about sanctuary
Speaker 5: cities or sanctuary policies or the fact that the federal
Speaker 5: government has the right and the power and the authority to,
Speaker 5: you know, to enforce the immigration laws, and that the
Speaker 5: states are effectively obstructing the enforcement of the immigration laws.
Speaker 5: So the whole opinion is kind of it's artificial in
Speaker 5: the sense that what you're talking about is like, there's
Speaker 5: violence in the streets and is it enough of an
Speaker 5: impediment on the federal agents And we're not really talking
Speaker 5: about why there's a problem and that whole.
Speaker 2: And I'll finish with this, but that's the part of
Speaker 2: this that's making me crazy because I am a very
Speaker 2: big fan of the decision of the Supreme Court in Princeville,
Speaker 2: United States, which was from nineteen ninety seven, which is
Speaker 2: the justification for sanctuary cities insofar as jurisdictions in America
Speaker 2: are not obliged to help the federal government. That case
Speaker 2: was a gun case. It was a case that came
Speaker 2: about after the Brady Act because the Brady Act initially
Speaker 2: required the states to enforce certain portions of federal law.
Speaker 2: And Scalia writes this opinion and he says, no, you're
Speaker 2: not allowed to do that. That's commandeering. So whenever people
Speaker 2: complain about sanctuary cities, I always jump in and say, hey,
Speaker 2: oh yeah, terrible politically, but legally, we actually like some
Speaker 2: of the principles that are in play here. But California,
Speaker 2: in its rhetoric and in its actions, has gone so
Speaker 2: much further than Prince and it really annoys me because
Speaker 2: in any other circumstance it would be very obvious that
Speaker 2: they are behaving like George Wallace. They're the ones who
Speaker 2: are redolent of the Confederacy and of the massive resistance,
Speaker 2: not Trump. And yet somehow in the press this gets
Speaker 2: cast as he's breaking norms. Well, he might be pushing
Speaker 2: it to the edges. But we had this fight, right,
Speaker 2: We had this fight over and over again. Are you
Speaker 2: allowed to nullify federal law? No, you're bloody well not.
Speaker 2: I've sent my piece.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 5: I do want to say though, that it's this is
Speaker 5: an interesting area, and it's been a kind of a
Speaker 5: bugaboo of mine for a long time because when the
Speaker 5: Constitution was ratified, the thing that was certain was that
Speaker 5: the states had authority over who was lawfully in their territory,
Speaker 5: and what wasn't clear was whether there was a federal
Speaker 5: enforcement role. The Supreme Court over about a century's time,
Speaker 5: beginning in the early twentieth century, probably late nineteenth century,
Speaker 5: derived a federal role out of basically two things. One
Speaker 5: the notion that the national government is sovereign and has
Speaker 5: to protect the borders and is in charge of foreign policy,
Speaker 5: is in charge of protecting Americans who are abroad, So
Speaker 5: that that was one part of it. And then the
Speaker 5: other part is Congress's the constitutional assignment to Congress an
Speaker 5: Article one of naturalization authority, you know, setting the terms
Speaker 5: of naturalization. From those two things, the court derived a
Speaker 5: federal responsibility over immigration enforcement. And then I think what
Speaker 5: happened is probably what invariably happens, which is, once the
Speaker 5: federal courts invent a federal responsibility, it swallows up the
Speaker 5: state responsibility. But for a long time we went along
Speaker 5: and this arrangement worked because federal statutory authority in terms
Speaker 5: of enforcement of immigration is very strong. It's very pro
Speaker 5: law enforcement. Charlie, you've had to deal with it in
Speaker 5: a way that you know that Steve and I happened.
Speaker 5: But I mean, they're, you know, they're pretty formidable laws.
Speaker 5: So you could tolerate a system where the states had
Speaker 5: the authority to enforce immigration only in so far as
Speaker 5: it was consistent with federal law. But then what happened
Speaker 5: was Obama comes along and he says, no, no, no,
Speaker 5: you don't have to use States don't have to comport
Speaker 5: with federal statutory law. You have to comport with Obama
Speaker 5: administration immigration policy, which is to not enforce the law,
Speaker 5: the federal laws. And I think Scalia rightly said that
Speaker 5: if you know, if it was presented to the States
Speaker 5: at the convention in Philadelphia in seventeen eighty seven, that
Speaker 5: you can't protect yourself immigration wise, because that's going to
Speaker 5: be a federal responsibility, and if they decide to not
Speaker 5: enforce their own laws, you can't. Then nobody would have
Speaker 5: joined this compact. The Constitution wouldn't have been ratified.
Speaker 1: Right Well, Andy, I you know, I kept thinking that
Speaker 1: if nothing else, this is kind of glib at kind
Speaker 1: of serious point. If nothing else, Trump has taken the
Speaker 1: gridlock in Congress and moved it to the judiciary. I mean,
Speaker 1: we're just jamming up the courts with all these problems,
Speaker 1: right But one reason we love to want to have
Speaker 1: you back over and over again, Andy, is there's no
Speaker 1: gridlock when we have you here. You sort out a
Speaker 1: lot of these problems for us and a lot more
Speaker 1: always to be said, but we'll have to have you
Speaker 1: back soon for the sequels, of which I'm sure there
Speaker 1: are going to be many.
Speaker 4: Probably sooner than later. But great to talk to you guys.
Speaker 1: Thanks Andy, we'll see you soon. See you well, all right, Charlie.
Speaker 1: You know our listeners can't see that wonderful, splashy blue
Speaker 1: flower print shirt you're wearing. It just screams Florida. And
Speaker 1: also you're obviously back in full fitness after your belt
Speaker 1: with the plague whatever it was. And I'm guessing it's
Speaker 1: because of the sheets you've been using.
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, And of course I used my sheets more
Speaker 2: than ever when I was sick, and they were luxurious
Speaker 2: to lie on because they're made by Cozy Earth. So
Speaker 2: Cozy Earth not only keeps me cool in what is
Speaker 2: now the full fledged Florida summer, but it nursed me
Speaker 2: back to hell. So thank you Cozy Earth for that.
Speaker 2: And that's because Cozy Earth uses the best fabrics and
Speaker 2: textiles that provide the ultimate ingredient for luxurious softness that
Speaker 2: lets me sleep like a baby. And here's the thing.
Speaker 2: They're not just soft.
Speaker 4: There.
Speaker 2: Weave fabric is enhanced for a durability that won't pull
Speaker 2: and best of all, Cozy Earth bedding products have a
Speaker 2: one hundred night sleep trial and a ten year warranty.
Speaker 2: That's a whole decade of cool quality sleep. What is that?
Speaker 2: Three years perhaps of sleeping, maybe more, depends how much
Speaker 2: you sleep. If you have small children like me, you
Speaker 2: sleep less than you shared, which means you don't get
Speaker 2: to spend as much time on the cozy air sheets
Speaker 2: as you want. But what you do spend is terrific.
Speaker 2: Luxury should not be out of reach. So you can
Speaker 2: go to cozyer dot com and use code ricochet obviously
Speaker 2: r I C O C H E T, and if
Speaker 2: you do, you will get up to forty percent off
Speaker 2: cozyerth's best selling temperature regulating sheets, apparel and more. Trust me,
Speaker 2: you will feel the dis Trust me, you will feel
Speaker 2: the difference the very first night. That's cozy earth dot com.
Speaker 2: The code is ricochet, Sleep Cooler, lounge lighter, and stay cozy.
Speaker 1: All right, Charles, let's get out today with a little
Speaker 1: cultural news. Boy. I got a reminder of how old
Speaker 1: I'm getting when the news came of the death of
Speaker 1: Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys, at the age of
Speaker 1: eighty two, i'd lost trap. Of course, everyone's getting to
Speaker 1: be a ja two from that old rocker generation of
Speaker 1: the sixties. But you know, I grew up with the
Speaker 1: beach boys in California. Was a beach Gord, Laguna Beach, Malibu,
Speaker 1: all the places they used to sing about.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 1: And it's very emblematic of California in those days, you know,
Speaker 1: the whole story of the Wilson and the the Mike
Speaker 1: Love and all the families involved in it, as they
Speaker 1: were sort of working class people who'd come to southern
Speaker 1: California where you could buy a home for quite cheaply
Speaker 1: not far from the beach, in places like Long Beach
Speaker 1: and Huntington Beach and Santa Monica, unlike today. And so
Speaker 1: that's just a side from the music. There's sort of
Speaker 1: a cultural connection there too, and I don't know, you know,
Speaker 1: that's sort of one of those totems. By the way,
Speaker 1: Paul McCartney once said that God Only Knows was the
Speaker 1: greatest rock and roll song ever written, which I thought
Speaker 1: was high praise, and I think it was George Martin
Speaker 1: who said that it was in fact, pet sounds really
Speaker 1: great out the greatest dabble of the Beach Boys that
Speaker 1: inspired the Beatles to excel and Sergeant Pepper. Sergeant Pepper
Speaker 1: was the Beatles answer to the Beach Boys because they
Speaker 1: thought the Beach Boys were their competition.
Speaker 2: Well, and they were. I think, really, if you look
Speaker 2: back at the sixties and seventies, there are three people
Speaker 2: who stand out to me as deserving the label genius.
Speaker 2: One is Paul McCartney, another is Paul Simon, and then
Speaker 2: you have Brian Wilson. The thing about Brian Wilson that's
Speaker 2: so interesting is he was crazy. He was not supposed
Speaker 2: to reach eighty two. Now I don't say that disparagingly,
Speaker 2: but he was quite genuinely afflicted by mental illness. He
Speaker 2: had a form of schizophrenia and he had auditory hallucinations,
Speaker 2: and I think the auditory hallucinations helped him. We overplay
Speaker 2: in our culture the tortured genius. Being mentally ill is
Speaker 2: not fun in movies. They often make it look glamorous
Speaker 2: being an alcoholic. But he derived his ability to do
Speaker 2: the work that he did from the same source as
Speaker 2: tormented him for so much of his life, and it
Speaker 2: really did tormenting me. He had to drop out in
Speaker 2: the mid sixties from the Beach Boys tours, just as
Speaker 2: they hit peak popularity, and that allowed him to produce
Speaker 2: Pet Sounds, which was basically a Brian Wilson project, and
Speaker 2: then everyone thought, well, here we go. We're going to
Speaker 2: see the sort of second half of the Beach Boys
Speaker 2: career that you saw in the Beatles, where from nineteen
Speaker 2: sixty six on which the Beatles just went super and over,
Speaker 2: but Brian Wilson couldn't do it. You get good vibrations
Speaker 2: and then he falls apart, and he spent the rest
Speaker 2: of his life falling apart. He couldn't work for most
Speaker 2: of it. He had rare flashes of genius. He spent
Speaker 2: years trying to produce one record. He was setting fire
Speaker 2: to things in the recording studio, putting his feet in sand.
Speaker 2: But undoubtedly one of the great songwriters of all time.
Speaker 2: And if you had told his family in nineteen sixty
Speaker 2: six that he would live till eighty two, I think
Speaker 2: they would have been shocked, especially given his drug use
Speaker 2: and his alcohol use. But he did, which is a
Speaker 2: happy ending of sorts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you mentioned sort of the mania that goes
Speaker 1: along with somebody of various degrees of spectral mental health.
Speaker 1: I've always been struck by the astounding fact that maybe
Speaker 1: the most famous song, or one of them, Good Vibrations,
Speaker 1: it took eighty hours in the studio to record that song.
Speaker 1: And I mean, if I've been one of the other musicians,
Speaker 1: I'd have been going out of my mind, I think.
Speaker 1: But he was such a perfectionist.
Speaker 2: You can.
Speaker 1: By the way, here's some outtakes of that process in
Speaker 1: the collection of records that I think. It was one
Speaker 1: of the things that always Wilson wanted to do after
Speaker 1: Pet Sounds, but had to abandon. But finally a few
Speaker 1: years ago someone came out with what they call the
Speaker 1: Smile Sessions. It's big, long collection, and you have in
Speaker 1: there some of the outtakes of early cuts of Good
Speaker 1: Vibrations and some of the narration, and you get some
Speaker 1: appreciation for how painsticking and demanding and Perfectioncy was, but
Speaker 1: also wanting to do something new and different that just
Speaker 1: had a sound that nobody else could come close to.
Speaker 1: I mentioned to somebody recently that you know, the other
Speaker 1: imitating imitators the Beach Boys in those years was jan
Speaker 1: and Deine. And the only reason I remember Janetine is
Speaker 1: their great. One of their great hit was The Little
Speaker 1: Old Lady from Pasadena, and since I lived in the
Speaker 1: Pasadena area, I sort of remember that. But they weren't
Speaker 1: even close, of course. I mean they can kind of
Speaker 1: imitate a little bit of the sound. But nobody remembers
Speaker 1: Jan and Deine today. But we're gonna remember Brian Wilson
Speaker 1: and the Beach Boys for a long time, I think.
Speaker 2: I think that's right. And by the way, McCartney was
Speaker 2: completely correct when he said that God Only Knows is
Speaker 2: the greatest pop song ever written. It's an astonishing work
Speaker 2: that really is more classical in its chord structure than
Speaker 2: most pop music. You got the explosion in the seventies
Speaker 2: of so called baroque en roll, but that was the
Speaker 2: first example of it and the best example of it.
Speaker 2: I like that song so much, Steve, that I actually
Speaker 2: played it at my wedding. It was our first dance song. Well,
Speaker 2: I'm a horrible dancer. I'm a very good musician, but
Speaker 2: for some reason, my sense of which I do have
Speaker 2: in my hands when I play instruments, just doesn't translate
Speaker 2: to the rest of my body. So I end up
Speaker 2: looking like some sort of stick insect, having a stroke,
Speaker 2: but my wife still.
Speaker 1: Oh, I want to get some AI generated version of
Speaker 1: that to show I'll be deported, got stripped of your citizenship?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 1: Can a chance to get into all those questions with
Speaker 1: ay or anybody else, But I think that'll do it
Speaker 1: for us this week, Listeners, This podcast was brought to
Speaker 1: you by Quality of Synalytic, Cozy Earth, and Bamboo hr.
Speaker 1: Please support them for supporting us, And as James likes
Speaker 1: to say, please join ricochet dot com, the best place
Speaker 1: for civil center right conversation on the web. And as
Speaker 1: James also likes to say, and I will like to
Speaker 1: say it too, please take a minute to leave a
Speaker 1: five star review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify or wherever
Speaker 1: you source your favorite podcast material. Your reviews help us
Speaker 1: get more listeners, and that keeps the show going. And
Speaker 1: so we will see you in the comments. Everybody on Ricochet,
Speaker 1: what are we up to? Four point oh?
Speaker 2: I've losed a town of things. Four point oh?
Speaker 1: All right, bye bye everybody, See you next week.