Speaker 1: Well whiskey coming fame, my pain, the honeys.
Speaker 2: All, ray, oh whiskey.
Speaker 1: Why think alone when you can drink it all? In
Speaker 1: with Ricochet's Three Whiskey Happy Hour, Join your bartenders, Steve Hayward,
Speaker 1: John You, and the International Woman of Mystery Lucretia where
Speaker 1: they slaps it happen livid? Ain't you bb on the
Speaker 1: show taps, gotta give me and let that whiskey bloon.
Speaker 2: Welcome everybody to a live version of the Three Whiskey
Speaker 2: Happy Hour. We're back on substack. We have left zoom
Speaker 2: left recording and just presenting it to people after the fact.
Speaker 2: We have many many people joining watching live, and we're
Speaker 2: inviting comments and questions in the comments in the live
Speaker 2: chat section. I'm John You, one of the co host
Speaker 2: of the Three Whiskey Happy Hour, and I'm joined by
Speaker 2: my co hosts Steve Hayward, who is caught in mid qift. Steve,
Speaker 2: what are you doing? What are you drinking there?
Speaker 1: I'm just having my standby Lefroy because it's Friday and
Speaker 1: it's all half so great, right, No, I've gotten an
Speaker 1: end of course.
Speaker 2: The International Woman of Mystery Lucretia, how are you?
Speaker 3: And what are you, Lucretia person.
Speaker 2: My new name.
Speaker 3: Do you don't know what that refers to you?
Speaker 2: John? I think so you're talking about the identification of
Speaker 2: the Canadian.
Speaker 4: Yes, yes, the gun person person, gun person, I think.
Speaker 2: I remember when Fetterman got elected, I said, why aren't
Speaker 2: the Democrats calling him fetter inks?
Speaker 4: I know, I know, but now he's like more solid
Speaker 4: than half the Republicans in the Senate. So actually, I
Speaker 4: am drinking. I am drinking a mixture of tea, honey,
Speaker 4: lemon and whiskey. Oh you're not feeling well, little little
Speaker 4: thanks to Steve A little bit of a this week?
Speaker 2: Were you yelling at well?
Speaker 1: Didn't you hear last year show?
Speaker 2: I was?
Speaker 1: I was. I was getting horse, you know, during last
Speaker 1: week's show, and we taped in Austin, and it only
Speaker 1: got worse over the weekend. And I had no voice
Speaker 1: in class on Monday. It was it was, you know,
Speaker 1: six hours in class on Monday.
Speaker 2: Did anybody notice.
Speaker 1: I had some guest lecturers? I had Lynn Keasling came
Speaker 1: to my class by zoom last Monday, and that was great.
Speaker 1: You saw you both saw her. Well, you were the
Speaker 1: panel chair, Lucretia. Anyway, we'll come back to the John.
Speaker 1: But I mean, look, we always have to, you know.
Speaker 1: The main news story of the week is the latest
Speaker 1: McDonald's news. A thread on Reddit which was the one
Speaker 1: thousand dollars challenge, how would you spend one thousand dollars
Speaker 1: at McDonald's in two days? And somebody said they'd spend
Speaker 1: the whole thousand dollars getting the ice cream machine fixed,
Speaker 1: which I thought was the best answer.
Speaker 2: I see, that's funny.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I thought so. But apparently that's a conspiracy for.
Speaker 2: The ice cream machine. The one that breaks down even
Speaker 2: more is the mcflurry machine is more an advanced version. No,
Speaker 2: that's like a because it does the mixing of the
Speaker 2: ice cream with other things like M and m's and
Speaker 2: so on. So that thing apparently breaks down even more
Speaker 2: than the ice cream machine. And then of course there
Speaker 2: must be some kind of rare McRib machine because it's
Speaker 2: so expensive, a rare it's only brought out a few
Speaker 2: times a year.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we better bring it back soon because bitcoin keeps
Speaker 1: plunging in price. It's it's having a bear market.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you know this one thousand dollars over two
Speaker 2: day challenge, of course, that got me to thinking how
Speaker 2: what exactly would you order? So of course you would
Speaker 2: try to order something that had the least number of
Speaker 2: calories per dollar. So I think that's got to be
Speaker 2: something like a triple patty, you know, big Max special
Speaker 2: or something like that. But I haven't been to McDonald's
Speaker 2: lately to test it out. But I'm going to this weekend.
Speaker 2: I'm going to go and see what's the most expensive
Speaker 2: things you could buy at McDonald's.
Speaker 1: You haven't been there for a while, are you? Are you?
Speaker 4: No? No?
Speaker 2: I mean I just haven't been there since I heard
Speaker 2: about this challenge.
Speaker 1: What are you talking about?
Speaker 2: Of course I've given McDonald's recently.
Speaker 1: O God, I have.
Speaker 2: I wasn't going to try and stop. All my friends
Speaker 2: from Texas has been urging me because they know about
Speaker 2: my love of convenience stores, to stop at something called BUCkies.
Speaker 2: Have you guys ever been to a Bucki's? But I
Speaker 2: haven't had the time, and they're not right in downtown.
Speaker 2: You have to drive out about thirty minutes. But I
Speaker 2: drove by one today but I couldn't stop because I
Speaker 2: was rushing back to do this podcast, and it looked
Speaker 2: like a cost Coast sized convenience store with already glass
Speaker 2: pumps out in front. So I'm very excited to try this.
Speaker 4: I think that Bucky's beats Walla any day, John.
Speaker 1: Oh, John, in the fighting words. My advice is set
Speaker 1: aside a couple of days to clear your calendar, because
Speaker 1: I think once you get inside BUCkies you might not
Speaker 1: leave for quiet.
Speaker 2: Really.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm not kidding, You're gonna be I can't wait
Speaker 1: to get your review of it. BUCkies is awesome.
Speaker 2: One of my friend friends at the Vailor where I
Speaker 2: was today a fellow named Kleineman, who's a good political scientist.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I know who he is.
Speaker 2: You I've written a book about presidential power. He said,
Speaker 2: what you want to get is the beef jerky. So
Speaker 2: he said there's so many kinds. I was like, how
Speaker 2: do you choose? And he goes, you get free tastes
Speaker 2: of jerky there, and I was like, what do you
Speaker 2: mean you actually take a piece of jerky and just
Speaker 2: take a poll and give it back. I mean, how
Speaker 2: do you get a free slice of beef jerky? Anyway?
Speaker 2: So enough about my favorite subject, convenience stores, and let's
Speaker 2: turn into the first ish. I'd like to start with
Speaker 2: the creature, which is the latest machinations and schemes in Washington, DC,
Speaker 2: where I think we've seen the Congress now going on
Speaker 2: vacation without passing the Save Act and also not funding DHS.
Speaker 1: Did they go on vacation, Well, they've gone on a
Speaker 1: kind of recess.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they've left, and so DHS is going unfunded starting
Speaker 2: this weekend. Of course this isn't applied to ICE because
Speaker 2: ICE is specially funded the beautiful bill, that's right, and
Speaker 2: the rest of the government is funded. But if you remember,
Speaker 2: in the budget deal, Congress decided to cut out the
Speaker 2: DHS funding part of it so that there would have
Speaker 2: to be an individual vote up or down on DJs.
Speaker 2: And as you know, the Democrats have refused to approve
Speaker 2: the date just funding bill unless there are changes made
Speaker 2: to ICE operations like no wearing of masks. Apparently no
Speaker 2: administrative warrants know what they're calling aggressive sweeps, whatever that means.
Speaker 2: And so you haven't been able to get agreement on
Speaker 2: the dh just funding bill. But I hear the creatious
Speaker 2: worried the Republicans are going to cave to all of
Speaker 2: this without passing the Save Act. Appreciate.
Speaker 4: So the last I heard is that they actually had
Speaker 4: fifty votes because Thune and Collins both decided to vote
Speaker 4: for it.
Speaker 3: So now all we need is for Thune to stop being.
Speaker 4: The worst that he is, oh and decide to hold
Speaker 4: a talking filibuster, which he can he can do. I
Speaker 4: don't I don't think that they should abolish the filibuster
Speaker 4: for a whole variety of reasons, but.
Speaker 3: Not over this anyway.
Speaker 4: But he can do a talking filibuster and force Democrats
Speaker 4: to get out there and argue that women liberal women
Speaker 4: are too stupid to be able to figure out how
Speaker 4: to get an ID that has an appropriate IDA with
Speaker 4: their married name on it, because how are they going
Speaker 4: to change their birth certificates? Oh my god, these people.
Speaker 4: You don't change your birth certificate when you change your name.
Speaker 4: When you get married, you take your birth certificate to
Speaker 4: the court clerk and then you get the side and
Speaker 4: then that's how you change your name. And then you
Speaker 4: go to the DMV and they give you an ID
Speaker 4: and it takes you five minutes and it costs you ten dollars.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's so stupid.
Speaker 4: But the problem is so the Gora and I went
Speaker 4: back and forth on X on this and he said,
Speaker 4: this is almost as good as repealing the Nineteenth Amendment.
Speaker 4: I said, no, the problem is going to be all
Speaker 4: those damn single liberal women who still have their maiden
Speaker 4: name unless they married their cats.
Speaker 2: Maybe right quickly, I should explain what the SAVE Act is,
Speaker 2: which I'm sorry. The Save Act would be federal legislation
Speaker 2: that establishes nationwide for voting a requirement for voter id
Speaker 2: And what Lucretie is referring to is that this criticism
Speaker 2: or accusations that this might prove difficult for married women
Speaker 2: whose birth certificate name and driver's i D name could
Speaker 2: be different. But the basic idea of the SAVE actors
Speaker 2: to establish some minimum standards for federal elections. It also
Speaker 2: some versions of it banned universal mail in voting, for example,
Speaker 2: as well, Steve, let me turn to you. But Steve,
Speaker 2: I thought we didn't one federal election legislation. Wasn't that
Speaker 2: the art that Republicans made against the Democrats HR one.
Speaker 2: If you remember at the beginning of the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: the argument Republicans made is that the Constitution gives the
Speaker 2: responsibility to running elections to the states, subject to a
Speaker 2: federal override if Congress chooses to pass one, but that
Speaker 2: it had been Republicans in general that had opposed universal
Speaker 2: nationwide rules on elections. Steve, what do you think, Well.
Speaker 1: Look, that was purely political, but for all the right reasons.
Speaker 1: They wanted to override all of the red states that
Speaker 1: have tighter voting oversight, including requiring IDs, which by the way,
Speaker 1: is wildly popular even with Democrats. I mean CNN as
Speaker 1: a poll showing you know, eighty five percent of the
Speaker 1: public supports it, in seventy percent of Democrats, seventy percent
Speaker 1: of blacks. So this is just a typical leftist racemongering.
Speaker 1: And so I mean, in that case, of course, you
Speaker 1: don't want them to hr. One of the Democrats was
Speaker 1: let's increase ways democrats can cheat at elections. That's what
Speaker 1: that was about. So even if you repaired behind the
Speaker 1: argument that the Constitution has multiple provisions on this that
Speaker 1: are arguably contradictory.
Speaker 2: Wait wait, wait, they're not contradictory. The clause says states states.
Speaker 2: It's basically says states determine the time, place, and matter
Speaker 2: of elections. Right, And it's as basically comma except for
Speaker 2: exceptions and regulations that Congress wishes to So Congress can
Speaker 2: always override the state rules, but the state rules are primary,
Speaker 2: and the rules, yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 4: What I want to bring up, though, is the fact
Speaker 4: that we have the fifteenth Amendment. It kind of want
Speaker 4: to leave the nineteenth Amendment out of it, but it
Speaker 4: does fall into it sort of the twenty fourth Amendment
Speaker 4: leave the twenty sixth Amendment out to but you could.
Speaker 4: Especially the fifteenth Amendment and the twenty fourth Amendment were
Speaker 4: passed because Democrats in Southern states, Democrats generally speaking, wanted
Speaker 4: to corrupt our electoral process by not allowing citizens to vote,
Speaker 4: not allowing citizens in the case of the fifteenth Amendment,
Speaker 4: who are citizens now as a result of the fourteenth Amendment,
Speaker 4: newly freed slaves, etc. And then, of course the twenty
Speaker 4: fourth Amendment was designed to get rid of the many.
Speaker 3: Sneaky, malicious laws.
Speaker 4: That Democrats passed after the fifteenth Amendment, so that they
Speaker 4: still didn't have to give blacks the vote. And so
Speaker 4: it got rid of poll taxes because one of the
Speaker 4: things they did was make it have an expense. You
Speaker 4: had to pay a poll tax in certain cases. So
Speaker 4: those two are examples, in my opinion, John of the
Speaker 4: belief that it is an obligation of Congress to ensure
Speaker 4: election integrity, and I think that there's no way to
Speaker 4: argue against that. That that's what the fifteenth Amendment is
Speaker 4: designed to do. It's what the excuse me, the twenty
Speaker 4: fourth Amendment is designed to do. The Save Act is
Speaker 4: trying to do the same thing. There has been now
Speaker 4: very serious evidence allegations with evidence down in Georgia, and
Speaker 4: I'm to understand that they're now in my home state
Speaker 4: of Arizona weeding out some really again serious allegations of
Speaker 4: voter fod leads out aside whether it's true or not,
Speaker 4: if it's even if it's not true that there was
Speaker 4: massive voter fraud in twenty and twenty four whatever twenty
Speaker 4: two here, why not ensure that you don't have these
Speaker 4: idiot democratic states allowing illegals to vote because they let
Speaker 4: them get driver's license and do all those other things
Speaker 4: and automatically register them to vote. And supposedly everybody keeps
Speaker 4: bringing out this heritage study that says only thirty four
Speaker 4: cases in the whole history of the world have ever
Speaker 4: been found of illegals voting.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I didn't read it. I don't know if any of
Speaker 4: that's true. But what I will tell you is today,
Speaker 4: two times today I saw references one two. I forget
Speaker 4: where the heck it was. Back in somewhere on the
Speaker 4: East Coast, some idiot who doesn't speak English and is
Speaker 4: not a citizen was elected mayor re elected mayor of
Speaker 4: some stupid town, and some stupid lady in Minneapolis brags
Speaker 4: about the fact that she is an illegal alien Minnesota representative.
Speaker 4: Did she vote for herself?
Speaker 3: The more on? I mean, what the heck?
Speaker 2: How can those obviously would not be prohibited by the
Speaker 2: Save Act because their candidates for office not voting.
Speaker 3: Well, well for herself.
Speaker 2: But actually the Georgia case is interesting because I think
Speaker 2: that Brad Raethlisberger, the guy who was attacked by President Trump,
Speaker 2: actually claims he wrote an art on the Wall Street
Speaker 2: Journal just recently and said he conducted an audit of
Speaker 2: the electoral rules, and I think he said he found
Speaker 2: eight cases out of two million registered voters of people
Speaker 2: who are not qualified to be on the roles. I mean,
Speaker 2: does eight? I mean that's a tiny percentage, right, that's
Speaker 2: less than less and less than one percent? Does that
Speaker 2: justify enacting John nationwide? John happening, But you have yet
Speaker 2: to produce real evidence of enough fraud to change any election.
Speaker 4: I don't know that we need to anybody wants to
Speaker 4: prove to change the election outcome. That's not the point.
Speaker 4: The point is to show how fraud happened so that
Speaker 4: it can't happen again.
Speaker 3: And there's not votes in Georgia.
Speaker 2: John three, you're saying three hundred thousand votes in Georgia
Speaker 2: were fraudently tasked.
Speaker 3: No, we're have questions about them.
Speaker 1: Three points if three points, if I may one is
Speaker 1: if there's really no fraud happening at all, Uh, then
Speaker 1: what's the problem with passing some safeguards because it wouldn't
Speaker 1: prevent anyone from voting. But the second one is there
Speaker 1: have been several jurisdictions. I think even New York had
Speaker 1: this at one point, where the Democrats wanted to allow
Speaker 1: non citizens to vote in municipal elections.
Speaker 2: They're less two.
Speaker 1: I mean thought I thought they lost that in the
Speaker 1: I thought they lost it in.
Speaker 2: The courts under their own state constitution. It's a question
Speaker 2: of streat law.
Speaker 1: But now does it come on common sense? You really
Speaker 1: think that you have a lot of people who are
Speaker 1: thinking non citizens should be able to vot vote because
Speaker 1: they'll vote for guess who that there aren't attempts to
Speaker 1: get them onto the voting rolls and cast their votes
Speaker 1: for them. Second point is is, look, I mean there's
Speaker 1: mounting evidence, although smoking gun proof is hard to assemble of,
Speaker 1: you know, massive welfare fraud like in Minnesota. You really
Speaker 1: think all those people Minnesota who are giving big campaign
Speaker 1: contributions to Democrats aren't casting any votes? Come on, John,
Speaker 1: even you are not that naive. Nor Look, my point
Speaker 1: is that it's not that.
Speaker 2: First of all, I don't think it's possible to drive
Speaker 2: anything like this to zero. And so the question is
Speaker 2: is it worth enacting nationwide federal legislation when Republicans have
Speaker 2: taken the position that we should just allow states to
Speaker 2: regulate it, like conservatives generally are in favor of states
Speaker 2: being the front line for most policy decisions.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, I'll give you my exit proposition now, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, Democrats love all those social democracies in England
Speaker 1: and in Europe, you know, Denmark, Sweden, France. My proposal is,
Speaker 1: let's have the same voting rules that they have deal
Speaker 1: because guess what, there are a lot tougher rules than
Speaker 1: we have. And so if they love those social democracies
Speaker 1: for all their well for state, let's have their voting
Speaker 1: rules tool. I'll make that. I will make that deal tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I'll make it to know.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's let's take a break. We're going to go
Speaker 2: to uh one of the most enticing ads ever for
Speaker 2: any podcast of any kind.
Speaker 1: We are the Korea. Well you know, yeah about stuff? Right? Sorry?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I guess you count as a conservative sometimes, John,
Speaker 4: Sometimes you know, the kind of that won't stand up
Speaker 4: for free and fair elections but steal a conservat I.
Speaker 2: Don't think anything's free or fair. That's the problem.
Speaker 4: But we should move forward that, don't you think. But
Speaker 4: since you know, we like to disagree, and I'm not
Speaker 4: calling you any names to night, so best behavior not
Speaker 4: in this segment now, I'm trying to be on my
Speaker 4: best behavior the whole night. But if you enjoy conservatives
Speaker 4: arguing like we do, and you don't want to hear
Speaker 4: any name calling, then you should.
Speaker 3: Probably try try out a new podcast.
Speaker 4: Try out a new podcast, Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen,
Speaker 4: who is the Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public
Speaker 4: Policy Center.
Speaker 3: He doesn't shy away from it.
Speaker 4: His podcast doesn't shy away from these conservative disputes. They
Speaker 4: just take them head on, just like we do. They
Speaker 4: lean into them by putting at least two conservatives who
Speaker 4: disagree about an important issue together to hash it out
Speaker 4: on the air. Every other week, Conservative Crossroads does what
Speaker 4: no other program does explore conservatives disagreements without name calling.
Speaker 4: Conservative Crossroads is the podcast for conservat damps who want
Speaker 4: to understand what's happening to their movement and just this
Speaker 4: is received. Join Henry Olsen and his guests at Conservative
Speaker 4: Crossrooms every other Monday is they hash out the ideas
Speaker 4: and principles that will decide the future of the right.
Speaker 2: I'm amazed that you know, the gold Bar advertising advertisers
Speaker 2: haven't called the cruise up to do their ads. I
Speaker 2: mean they've gotten back God William Devane, he always plays
Speaker 2: the president of the Secretary of Defense. Right, they should
Speaker 2: have a female version as well, well, A wonderful ed
Speaker 2: I don't think Henry deserves it.
Speaker 4: Before you move on, John, to the next point, since
Speaker 4: I actually answered your question, you didn't ask in the
Speaker 4: first saying we were talking about immigration and I was
Speaker 4: already on the Save Act because it was first in
Speaker 4: our list. Sorry, my brain was just going in that direction.
Speaker 4: I kind of want to make a really serious point
Speaker 4: for a second, and that is that, Okay, I won't
Speaker 4: call him out by name, but at our conference last week,
Speaker 4: our good friend and I had a conversation, and he's
Speaker 4: a good conservative, but he said, look, we have to
Speaker 4: back off on immigration. We have to back off on
Speaker 4: the idea that we should deport every illegal immigrant, because
Speaker 4: Trump's going to lose that battle, and you know, it's
Speaker 4: already Independents are turning away from him, et cetera, et cetera,
Speaker 4: and we should, you know, and we're at fault as
Speaker 4: a country for allowing for so many years the the
Speaker 4: unfettered illegal immigration into the country. So all of these
Speaker 4: people came in thinking that they were being welcomed, and
Speaker 4: it's not fair to kick them out. Again, good conservative
Speaker 4: on most issues, I think that this is a watershed moment.
Speaker 4: Either the United States decides that we are going to
Speaker 4: have laws, We're going to have immigration laws, we're going
Speaker 4: to have them enforced fairly but universally, or we become
Speaker 4: a nation of.
Speaker 3: Lawlessness. You know, something right out.
Speaker 4: Of Abraham Lincoln's I see him address right, Yes, and anyway,
Speaker 4: that's my major point that I really did want to
Speaker 4: make about this, John, And I think that the SAYBAC
Speaker 4: goes along with that a little bit. But more so
Speaker 4: is this idea that we should play politics with the
Speaker 4: enforcement of our laws and decide that, you know, something
Speaker 4: as important as our own sovereign borders can just be
Speaker 4: left up to whatever the political wins are of the moment.
Speaker 2: I'm afraid. I just think it's impossible to force any laws.
Speaker 2: And it's a policy question how much we want to
Speaker 2: devote towards how many resources we want to devote towards enforcement,
Speaker 2: And one of the ways we decide is by giving
Speaker 2: political feedback to the executive branch. And does seem like
Speaker 2: the polls show people think that the Trump administration has
Speaker 2: gone too far? Now a majority of Republicans still support
Speaker 2: the enforcement levels, but the Democrats, of course heavily oppose it.
Speaker 2: But Independence have turned against this level of immigration enforcement. Steve,
Speaker 2: what do you think about that? Should should independence decide
Speaker 2: how much enforcement authorities get thrown into the immigration fight?
Speaker 2: Or should the President Trump, as Lucretia's advising, keep going
Speaker 2: forward until all the illegal aliens are removed from the country.
Speaker 1: John, So, first of all, general proposition, independence should be
Speaker 1: relied upon to be a decisive voice in absolutely nothing,
Speaker 1: whatever the issue is. You know, every four years they
Speaker 1: have these debates where the last debate is with undecided voters,
Speaker 1: and if you ever watched those, they are always morons, Right,
Speaker 1: who's undecided? Three weeks before national election? Morons undecided and
Speaker 1: they asked moronic questions now. But the more serious point,
Speaker 1: I mean, I am serious about that. But the more
Speaker 1: serious point is I'm kind of amazed there's a much
Speaker 1: public support as there still is in light of the
Speaker 1: media onslaught on this. Look the media accounts for a lot.
Speaker 1: They still swing public opinion five ten points on things.
Speaker 1: That's you know, Timothy Grows Closest Findings and other people
Speaker 1: that I think are pretty robust. And the great thing
Speaker 1: about the Trump people is they don't give a you
Speaker 1: know what. And look, John, I don't think even they
Speaker 1: think we're going to deport every single person who crossed
Speaker 1: over illegally at whatever timeframe. But one of things about
Speaker 1: this it is working is you know, everyone thought Mitt
Speaker 1: Romney was a monster for saying we won't have to
Speaker 1: lots of people there'll be self deportation.
Speaker 2: I think the.
Speaker 1: Ratio right now is something like three to one. I
Speaker 1: think three people are leaving for every one person's being
Speaker 1: arrested and sent it abroad. And so this is working.
Speaker 1: And I say stay the course, just like Reagan did
Speaker 1: about the economy in nineteen eighty two, and don't pay
Speaker 1: attention to the darn poles. John, that is the road
Speaker 1: to ruin. And I'll just stop there because I think
Speaker 1: Lucreas is agreeing with me furiously. Maybe I should keep going.
Speaker 1: This is a rare moment I can enjoy it well.
Speaker 4: I mean, first of all, I haven't paid as much
Speaker 4: attention to the polls themselves in and looked into the
Speaker 4: questions and so forth. I wouldn't be surprised to find
Speaker 4: that many of them are pushfulls and not actually trying
Speaker 4: to find out what public opinion, public sentiment on the
Speaker 4: issue really is. But Steve's also right when he says it,
Speaker 4: the media play.
Speaker 3: On this has just been appalling.
Speaker 2: And.
Speaker 3: You're right, of course, John.
Speaker 4: We will never have the resources to enforce every single law.
Speaker 4: We're not going to arrest every Jaywalker, and I get
Speaker 4: all that, Nor are we going to prosecute every jaywalker
Speaker 4: and so on. We have limited resources, but there cannot
Speaker 4: be in a country that claims to be a sovereign country,
Speaker 4: they cannot have open borders that allows anybody to come in,
Speaker 4: including enemies and terrorists, etc. That's a whole nother thing.
Speaker 4: But the other problem, of course is that use Minnesota
Speaker 4: as an example. It was one thing for my grandparents
Speaker 4: and your parents to come here. They didn't come here
Speaker 4: and go on welfare, right, I mean, and they came
Speaker 4: here and they worked hard. They might have gone to
Speaker 4: a community diaspora of their own people where they got
Speaker 4: some help along the way, for sure, but nobody expected
Speaker 4: that they would come here and just feed off the public,
Speaker 4: you know what, for the rest of their lives. And
Speaker 4: that in and of itself is so problematic. Never mind
Speaker 4: the lack of assimilation and so on. We cannot tolerate.
Speaker 4: This is one of those things we have to put
Speaker 4: resources to and that's why Trump won in.
Speaker 3: Twenty twenty four in my opinion.
Speaker 4: And we cannot just decide, Okay, well, you know, this
Speaker 4: person has been living here for sixteen years. Let's stay
Speaker 4: overstayed there three months visa. But they haven't really broken
Speaker 4: any laws, so we won't go after them.
Speaker 3: We cannot do that. I mean, it just seems to
Speaker 3: me basic.
Speaker 2: Let's move on to another topic. Since I'm the host.
Speaker 2: I can't really you said this is so unfair or
Speaker 2: not violent or violent, I've been canceled, so topic number
Speaker 2: two and it just gets worse for me after this
Speaker 2: last topic is I'm going to trigger discussing the act
Speaker 2: which shall not be named. But perhaps what I think
Speaker 2: this probably is true. President Trump announced on Friday the
Speaker 2: reversal of something called the Endangerment Finding, which he said
Speaker 2: was the largest single active deregulation in American history. Yeah, Steve,
Speaker 2: what is the endangerment finding? It sounds like some kind
Speaker 2: of riskue musical or sometime. What is an endangerment finding?
Speaker 2: And why is it so important? And does it actually
Speaker 2: produce the greatest single active deregulation in American history?
Speaker 1: In reverse order? The answer is yes. But John, you
Speaker 1: can relax. We have reached the point for our purposes
Speaker 1: in this podcast. With certain band statutes. That reminds me
Speaker 1: of the a comic novel from the eighties. It was
Speaker 1: Richard Gramier's great comic novel The Marrakesh one, two and
Speaker 1: it's about a bunch of CIA officers whose cover was
Speaker 1: there could go to the Middle least and spy. But
Speaker 1: they're going to be making a movie about Mohammad, and
Speaker 1: they didn't realize that you can't actually allow you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to. So that was the comic device, as the
Speaker 1: whole comic device was the entire movie. All the scenes,
Speaker 1: all the dialogue would be shooting reaction shots of people
Speaker 1: looking and listening to Mohammad. But then then you couldn't
Speaker 1: even have the shadow of Mohammad onto the ground, right,
Speaker 1: So I mean it was. It was a very funny novel.
Speaker 1: If it had been more of a best seller Richard Granier,
Speaker 1: he would have gotten the Fatua instead of Salmon Rushti
Speaker 1: in the later eighties. So the point is, I can
Speaker 1: discuss this Sean without mentioning a certain prohibited statute that
Speaker 1: rhymes with bear fair or fact or something like that. Okay, look,
Speaker 1: this was the lynchpin of regulating of nationalizing all of
Speaker 1: our energy from the electric power grid and power plants
Speaker 1: to our automobiles and even our appliances. And the EPA
Speaker 1: did that because that statue that won't be named never
Speaker 1: did include carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases, so they had
Speaker 1: she warnered in with the help of a close Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Both that you know, all about a couple of things
Speaker 1: to be said about this. I've been wanting to say
Speaker 1: from the beginning of the week. You know, endangerment Will
Speaker 1: Robinson or something in old days, but.
Speaker 2: He's a space reference for those keeping Yeah.
Speaker 1: I wasn't sure you're old enough for that, John, But look,
Speaker 1: I will say this military analogy that ought to be
Speaker 1: close to home for you. This move this week by
Speaker 1: Trump is the inchon landing of the tax on the
Speaker 1: administrative state, right. I mean, you know the history of
Speaker 1: that in the Korean War, I assume. And so first,
Speaker 1: it's unimaginable that any Republican named Bush or Romney or
Speaker 1: McCain would have ever done anything. McCain and Rodney, by
Speaker 1: the way, they were totally down with the climate change hysteria, right,
Speaker 1: and I won't go through their sorry record on all that.
Speaker 1: And the Bushes would never have resisted it. So again,
Speaker 1: only Trump could go to China, you know the Nixon thing, right,
Speaker 1: Only Trump would do this, and good for him. Second,
Speaker 1: and this is long entangled. I don't want to bore
Speaker 1: people with the ins and outs. But I think they're
Speaker 1: gonna make this stick because of careful preparation to make
Speaker 1: it stand up to legal challenge. They're going to get
Speaker 1: a legal challenge, but I think they're going to make
Speaker 1: the stick. Even the New York Times this week said, gosh,
Speaker 1: it looks like this one was not easy for a
Speaker 1: future Democrat to reverse with an executive order or a
Speaker 1: new EPA dictat that's long and complicated. But the final
Speaker 1: thing to me is the media coverage. You expected to
Speaker 1: be hysterical. I didn't expect it to be completely stupid.
Speaker 1: So ABC News, their evening news broadcasts, I think yesterday
Speaker 1: the day before, said Trump is depriving the EPA and
Speaker 1: the government of the ability to control the climate, as
Speaker 1: if our EPA could control the whole world's climate with
Speaker 1: a knob. I mean, how are they going to do this?
Speaker 1: It turns out, if you want to just one fact
Speaker 1: about this, none, almost none of the interventions that have
Speaker 1: been made by US or other industrialized countries has had
Speaker 1: any effect on the decarbonization rate of our energy systems,
Speaker 1: which is going along for two hundred years now at
Speaker 1: about one or a half or sent a year. Not
Speaker 1: because people want to be clean and green. We like
Speaker 1: efficiency because when you're efficient, guess what, you make more money? Right,
Speaker 1: And none of this is working, it's not making any difference.
Speaker 1: Uh So this is I mean, I'm enjoying this. Oh,
Speaker 1: I mean, I can go on a while. One last
Speaker 1: thing is the media covers decided to not use certain
Speaker 1: prominent climatista voices like Michael Mann, the guy who sued
Speaker 1: Nash Review It is now on the hook for millions
Speaker 1: of dollars for lying to the court. Well Ap interviewed
Speaker 1: him and then put him up in an early version
Speaker 1: of the story and then took him out because even
Speaker 1: the media is coming around and realizing these people really
Speaker 1: were crazy and they're still going to report wrongly and
Speaker 1: badly in reports that every storm is a you know,
Speaker 1: it's because of climate change.
Speaker 3: Did they take him out of the stick.
Speaker 1: Stick?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I'll stop there because as you know, I can
Speaker 1: bore you forever without even mentioning.
Speaker 2: You already you already have, Steve, don't put yourself. Probably so,
Speaker 2: Lucretia has done her part, believe it or not, in
Speaker 2: popping the hysteria about climate change. Because the reason we
Speaker 2: were all three of us in Austin last Friday was
Speaker 2: for a conference by the Civitas Institute about climate change.
Speaker 2: We had panelists who were part of this Department of
Speaker 2: Energy special task Force to evaluate the science behind climate change,
Speaker 2: behind the engagement finding, which was very critical, and Lucretia
Speaker 2: shared a pad the third panel and I actually didn't
Speaker 2: it just to ask you, lu Christian, what is your
Speaker 2: view of climate change and the science and the economics,
Speaker 2: the things that you heard and saw while you were
Speaker 2: moderating these panels, because you were moderating, so you couldn't
Speaker 2: speak your mind, much like the moderator tonight.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Well, the funny thing was is that we had a
Speaker 4: kind of an outlier on our pan who's well, I
Speaker 4: actually found really interesting and everybody's gonna get a kick out.
Speaker 3: Actually probably not. You're going to be upset about this.
Speaker 4: But in the midst of all the academies and the
Speaker 4: political science theory that she threw into her presentation, what
Speaker 4: she was talking about was the fact that the reason
Speaker 4: our homeowner's insurance rates are skyrocketing is not because you know,
Speaker 4: the whatever happened in Tennessee or even California. It's because
Speaker 4: climate change risk is being from the models, the models
Speaker 4: of climate change risk that can't even predict accurately what
Speaker 4: happened in the past, are being built into by the
Speaker 4: actuaries into our homeowner's insurance rates. And I don't know
Speaker 4: about you guys, but mine's gone up three hundred percent
Speaker 4: in the twenty years I've owned this home and I've
Speaker 4: never had a claim. And the biggest part of that is,
Speaker 4: I know, housing prices go up, which means it's more
Speaker 4: expensive to replace.
Speaker 3: A home if it burns down.
Speaker 4: I get all that, but it's still way beyond anything
Speaker 4: that you should expect. So I thought that was really
Speaker 4: interesting when you know her explanation of really sort of
Speaker 4: intricate details about how the politics inside of Congress work
Speaker 4: on that.
Speaker 3: But the main point was that climate.
Speaker 4: Change risks, which is a hoax of major proportions, in
Speaker 4: case you were wondering, my thoughts is, actually, you know,
Speaker 4: it has all sorts of really negative consequences beyond those
Speaker 4: stupid cars that shut down when you stop at a stoplight.
Speaker 4: The first time I went and took my card to
Speaker 4: the Audi dealer and they gave me a loaner and
Speaker 4: I got to the stop light and car stalled, and
Speaker 4: I took it back. I said, installed at the stop light,
Speaker 4: and they thought I was, you know, the dumb blonde,
Speaker 4: which I was, but I didn't know that six eight
Speaker 4: years ago, sending maybe more. Yeah, but you know what
Speaker 4: a stupid thing. And I remember being a kid, you know,
Speaker 4: when I first would drive, you'd never turn your engine off,
Speaker 4: like if you're going to run inside the house, because
Speaker 4: it was bad for it. And I just I could
Speaker 4: never get myself to stop being upset when it would
Speaker 4: do that. One car we had had a button, but
Speaker 4: you had to push it every time, you know that,
Speaker 4: So that's gone.
Speaker 1: I know. Well, at least in America we have the
Speaker 1: option of turning that field. I have two cars that
Speaker 1: have that start automatic stop thing, and I have it
Speaker 1: to save you because you can do that. Here in Europe,
Speaker 1: I think it's mandatory because they're you know, fuel Nazis
Speaker 1: and everything else. Right, Yeah, I think we should say, though, Lucretia.
Speaker 1: I mean, the person you're talking about is Jessica Winkle
Speaker 1: from the University of North Carolina, and she's what do
Speaker 1: you say about her? She's she's not terribly political. She's
Speaker 1: a bit of an outlier in this sense. I think
Speaker 1: I think she would not say climate change as a hoax.
Speaker 1: I think she's probably a person who can be described
Speaker 1: as a blop warmer. Yeah, well, okay, I mean I
Speaker 1: haven't read I've read a lot of it. I've always
Speaker 1: put up She's very careful about saying, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: something's off here. And look her main point, which she
Speaker 1: came to at the end. And by the way, I
Speaker 1: think she hasn't been too many conferences quite like this one,
Speaker 1: although there haven't been many quite like this.
Speaker 3: And I didn't even tug about the most fun one, but.
Speaker 2: Well, the climate of the one I was on was
Speaker 2: really boring. The best panel anyway, scientist her main where
Speaker 2: they just wailed on each other and yeah, scientific felons
Speaker 2: and frauds, right, it was wonderful. Well, I'm so glad
Speaker 2: they just finished with Jessica to each other.
Speaker 1: Oh go ahead, sorry, let me finish with Jessica. In
Speaker 1: one sentence, her culminating main point was scientific expertise has
Speaker 1: been damaged and it's their own fault, right because we've
Speaker 1: given too many of these extravagant claims about climate change,
Speaker 1: and the insurance companies have exploited this, right and anyway,
Speaker 1: so no She's very good, I think, and an interesting
Speaker 1: person to keep your eye on. But yet the side,
Speaker 1: you know, she made me sad. I'll tell you.
Speaker 4: Let me say this is a totally different thing. But
Speaker 4: I think you guys will appreciate it. My academic career
Speaker 4: inside of you know that the regular thing is coming
Speaker 4: to an end. Happily, I turned in my paperwork to retire.
Speaker 4: I'm very happy about that.
Speaker 2: So now she's Lucretia America.
Speaker 4: Well I have to grant it first, but but but
Speaker 4: my point is is that we had a long talk
Speaker 4: about and she was asking me for advice about how
Speaker 4: you sort of deal with with with the intricacies of
Speaker 4: getting tenure and and being you know, I mean her
Speaker 4: her course load to teach based on how much research
Speaker 4: she was expected to do was it was astounding, and
Speaker 4: I just remember feeling awful for her and thinking, God,
Speaker 4: akadem is a terrible pleace to be these days. Anyway, Sorry,
Speaker 4: that was a total little tangent, but I know that
Speaker 4: our listeners sometimes like to hear a little bit about
Speaker 4: what's going on in academia, and it's awful.
Speaker 2: Well, well, on that happy note, we are going to
Speaker 2: take another ad break coming back I thought one more
Speaker 2: interesting topic for a discussion had to do with a
Speaker 2: great conference I got to participate in this week at
Speaker 2: the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, which was a conference
Speaker 2: devoted to evaluating the legacy of Justice Scalia last week.
Speaker 2: This week was the tenth anniversary of his death. Can
Speaker 2: you believe it's been ten years? And it was a
Speaker 2: lot of fun because it was right now that was
Speaker 2: a distance of time, asking people what they thought about
Speaker 2: his impact, his influence, why he had any and so
Speaker 2: I got to tell some interesting personal stories about my
Speaker 2: relationship with him. Because the year I clerked for Justice Thomas,
Speaker 2: none of Justice Scalia's clerks played squash or tennis, and
Speaker 2: I did. I played both, So I ended up driving
Speaker 2: Justice Scalia to play squash of tennis twice a week,
Speaker 2: and I would talk to him during these times, and
Speaker 2: being a twenty five year old smart ass, recent graduate
Speaker 2: of law school, I would ask him and say all
Speaker 2: kinds of now that I think about it, crazy ridiculous
Speaker 2: things to him, like nobody agrees with you, why do
Speaker 2: you write the sentence at all? So on I look back,
Speaker 2: I can't believe I asked them things like this, But
Speaker 2: my main steps. And I'll tell some of these stories
Speaker 2: another time, because I do feel like I got to
Speaker 2: know him pretty well. I should have written it up
Speaker 2: into a book. Actually, all the things we talked about.
Speaker 2: But one thing that I tried to say on the
Speaker 2: panel is if the Court strikes down independent agencies for
Speaker 2: good this year, right as I think it will in
Speaker 2: this case about the FTC, the slaughter case over Wall,
Speaker 2: as Humphrey's executor, it will be the ultimate vindication of
Speaker 2: Justice Scilia, because in his very first year he dissented
Speaker 2: alone in Morrison versus Olsen and said that the Independent
Speaker 2: Council statute was unconstitutional. Now today that almost seems inevitable.
Speaker 2: His logic that the executive powers granted the Constitutions granted
Speaker 2: executive power to the president must include the power to
Speaker 2: fire anybody who is responsible for executing federal law. It
Speaker 2: seems inevitable that the Court would adopt that logic. It
Speaker 2: seems inevitable that all these independent agencies would eventually be
Speaker 2: brought to reign. But in nineteen eighty seven, in nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty eight, really Scillia's first year real year on the Court,
Speaker 2: he dissented alone. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion
Speaker 2: saying that Congress could prevent the firing of even prosecutors.
Speaker 2: There was no scholarship, there was no histories, there were
Speaker 2: no arguments in defense of the unitary executive, if you
Speaker 2: want to call that, And it was such a lonely
Speaker 2: position to take at that time. And so one of
Speaker 2: the things I said, it really does show the force
Speaker 2: of ideas and the force of personality really can make
Speaker 2: a difference in politics. And scale is dessent to Morrison
Speaker 2: versus Olsen eventually winning out right thirty years later, almost
Speaker 2: to in.
Speaker 3: The end in the factical world.
Speaker 2: Yeah, to eventually just to end the reign of independent agencies.
Speaker 2: I think it's a remarkable story. But anyway, I was
Speaker 2: what I was going to ask both to you is
Speaker 2: what do you think of Justice Scalia's impact and influence
Speaker 2: ten years later?
Speaker 1: Steve, Well, you know it was interesting you've hbably remembered
Speaker 1: us from ten years ago. John is when he died.
Speaker 1: You had a lot of people on the left, such
Speaker 1: as Linda Greenhouse. The other Greenhouse effect. I always left
Speaker 1: us say Linda Greenhouse, who's awful. Let's just stipulate that
Speaker 1: I don't look to be any daylight between the three
Speaker 1: of us on that question. She said, you know, Skale
Speaker 1: was really right about that Independent Council thing all those
Speaker 1: years ago. And that's when I thought, you know, the
Speaker 1: jig is up for these guys, because the consequent logic
Speaker 1: of that points to where we have gotten to now.
Speaker 1: And of course why do they say that though it
Speaker 1: was political not really constitutional principle. It's because ken Starr
Speaker 1: revealed that the Independent Council could be used against Democrats. Right.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, that thing was set up to prosecute
Speaker 1: Republicans after the Nixon years, and so good for ken
Speaker 1: Starr for wrecking it. We did. But two of the
Speaker 1: things to say is you've left out John and I
Speaker 1: try to be brief about these things. But you go
Speaker 1: back to those years. You say Scale was all alone,
Speaker 1: but you know the Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that
Speaker 1: set the case up that sided with Ted Olson was
Speaker 1: spectacular and written by your other you, clerk Ford, Lawrence Silberman. Right,
Speaker 1: So you go back to those days, there's Lawrence Silberman,
Speaker 1: and you know, maybe my wife's judged Danny Boggs and
Speaker 1: either Jones a few years later, just a tiny handful.
Speaker 1: Now there's a lot of Laurence Silberman's on the court
Speaker 1: and on the spits to one degree or another right
Speaker 1: or not identical. And then finally you'd say that you know,
Speaker 1: Scalia did defend the Chevron doctor for a while, as
Speaker 1: most Reaganiites did, right. They thought that helped them to
Speaker 1: rationalize and make more sensible a bureaucratic regulation. But by
Speaker 1: degree is everything you heard is that by twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: he was starting to change his mind about that. So
Speaker 1: I think he'd be pretty happy and strongly in the
Speaker 1: majority on things like the West Virginia case with the
Speaker 1: major questions doctor and so forth. So yeah, his his
Speaker 1: shadow lengthens every year. And I think there you know,
Speaker 1: certain core philosophical differences he had with Thomas, such as
Speaker 1: on natural law on its application. I think those would
Speaker 1: be diminishing over time. Lucretia, all right, I just people
Speaker 1: who aren't people who are going to be listening to this,
Speaker 1: or you canna say John is getting a sour prune
Speaker 1: look on his face for my invocation of natural law.
Speaker 2: But don't worry, we're going to come back to that
Speaker 2: after the It didn't go unnoticed. I don't think you're
Speaker 2: a sneaky bastard as you think you are.
Speaker 4: It does make more sense to me, John, Now why
Speaker 4: you're such a positivist if you spent all that time
Speaker 4: with Skalah, which is the only thing about him that
Speaker 4: I find objectionable. But it's one of those situations where
Speaker 4: the good is far out ways the bad, in this case,
Speaker 4: far out ways the bad.
Speaker 3: But he was in fact a positivist about the law and.
Speaker 4: Did not believe that, for instance, we should turn to
Speaker 4: the Declaration of independence, So were any of the theories
Speaker 4: of the Declaration of Independence and understanding the constitution that
Speaker 4: being said ten years after to the day as actually today,
Speaker 4: I'm not going to speak ill of him at all.
Speaker 4: I remember as young, young undergraduate, especially when I took
Speaker 4: I took three or four classes in constitutional law that
Speaker 4: we happened to have as an undergraduate, and and just
Speaker 4: loved reading scully A's opinions. You know, he brings in
Speaker 4: or well, and he brings everybody else is just oh
Speaker 4: jo on and on, and he's just delightful reading Scullya's
Speaker 4: opinions and especially his descents. I do also remember you
Speaker 4: talked about what the Liberals did when he died. I
Speaker 4: remember that the right, was certain that you know that
Speaker 4: there was some foul play involved in his death, and
Speaker 4: that went on for a very long time. Because he
Speaker 4: had been so influential and successful on the court, and
Speaker 4: because of the timing of his unfortunate death, we did
Speaker 4: not get Mark Garland, as our liberal friends hoped we would,
Speaker 4: and we've had that discussion many times. We got instead
Speaker 4: to Gorsich, Justice Gorsag thanks.
Speaker 2: To the thanks to the maneuvering of your favorite, second
Speaker 2: my favorite.
Speaker 3: There's enough, you know, there you go.
Speaker 4: I mean, I think his brain actually has been addled
Speaker 4: by Trump derangement syndrome because the Say Act is something
Speaker 4: he's been fighting for those kinds of things his whole career,
Speaker 4: and all of a sudden, just because Trump wants it,
Speaker 4: he's not gonna he's not gonna support it. Never mind,
Speaker 4: Maybe it's maybe I'm going to have age limits after all,
Speaker 4: because these old people are just driving me crazy.
Speaker 2: Let me one point that I made at the AI
Speaker 2: conference to follow up on Steve's point, which is I
Speaker 2: did ask, you know, some points that I don't think
Speaker 2: Scleia ever got to address, because I think he did
Speaker 2: die a little early. Was he never did explain how
Speaker 2: much of a positivist he was. Did he actually think
Speaker 2: the Constitution could exist in a kind of free, free state,
Speaker 2: ungrounded in any pre existing sense of right or wrong
Speaker 2: or morality. Was it really just a document meant to
Speaker 2: uh effectuate democracy? Which is something you know, things he
Speaker 2: would say often, you know, Was he really like Holmes
Speaker 2: who famously said, uh, if the American people voted to
Speaker 2: send themselves to hell, Holmes, would you know, do his
Speaker 2: duty and help them on their way? And so there
Speaker 2: was this famous speech where uh, Scalia went to the
Speaker 2: Vatican and spoke to an audience of Canon lawyers. And
Speaker 2: I would have thought if there were ever any place
Speaker 2: he would yield an inch to natural law natural rights,
Speaker 2: it would be there. But he would not. He didn't.
Speaker 2: He did not yield an inch at all. So I
Speaker 2: think the answer to Steve's question is that he really
Speaker 2: was a pure positivist and would not accept any role
Speaker 2: for a natural law actual rights. And I asked, but
Speaker 2: is that really a defect? I mean, does that in
Speaker 2: a way? Is that not? Maybe why Scalia's opinions are
Speaker 2: so in a way attractive to liberals too, I mean,
Speaker 2: he apparently he's one of the most cited justices, but
Speaker 2: by the three.
Speaker 1: Yes, because right.
Speaker 2: If you don't build a morality into your opinions that
Speaker 2: doesn't come from the constitutions, that makes them maybe it
Speaker 2: gives them more staying power.
Speaker 1: Well, I have an explanation. But Lucretia, you have a question.
Speaker 4: You said, I just want to know why you would
Speaker 4: bother to support democracy with a constitution, Why would you
Speaker 4: choose democracy?
Speaker 1: Well, look, I haven't that's my explanation.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean that's the problem is that ultimately, if
Speaker 4: you cannot give a defense of the natural law basis
Speaker 4: for people governing themselves in a democracy or republic, if
Speaker 4: you cannot do that, then then it's very easy ultimately
Speaker 4: to do what has happened, which is to you know,
Speaker 4: to deny that anybody but elites ought to rule. It's
Speaker 4: very easy to undermine the entire structure if you cannot
Speaker 4: build it on the right foundation.
Speaker 3: Sorry, go ahead, see you.
Speaker 1: Listen to Well, let me go back to let me
Speaker 1: go back to that appearance of the Vatican. You mentioned John,
Speaker 1: because it's when John Paul two was still alive and
Speaker 1: in charge of things. He gave a talk to I
Speaker 1: think he introduced Scalia. Now, if you took John Paul
Speaker 1: two's text where he said very sensible things that could
Speaker 1: have been written by Lucretia about democracy and the natural
Speaker 1: law basis for it, and Scale's text, and he took
Speaker 1: the names off them. You would have said, oh, this
Speaker 1: person who turned out to be John Paul to he
Speaker 1: should be on the court. I mean, he's the one.
Speaker 1: He's expressing the more of a deep American understanding, American
Speaker 1: founding understanding. And Scalia was again pure positivism or not pure.
Speaker 1: But here's the point. If you then bring alongside renquists
Speaker 1: famous Lectury gave in nineteen seventy seven where he quotes
Speaker 1: Holmes right like you do John from time to nothing
Speaker 1: or you know, okay, he quotes homes the problem. Think
Speaker 1: about when Scalia goes to law school and Renquist goes
Speaker 1: to law school at Stanford along with Sandraday O'Connor in
Speaker 1: the forties, and there's nobody talking about natural law, there's
Speaker 1: nobody talking about originalism of any kind, and you Holmes
Speaker 1: was the grand figure and then the most famous justice.
Speaker 1: I think, by the way, uh Scalia is displacing Holmes.
Speaker 1: I think what redeems Scalia and explains him is, in fact,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, his Catholic faith. He
Speaker 1: would say privately, I believe in natural law. I don't
Speaker 1: believe judges can use that as an interpretive tool. But
Speaker 1: I think he could not get away from his fundamental
Speaker 1: spiritual values. And I think that explains why he was
Speaker 1: so and plus he's smart, right, And John think that
Speaker 1: explains it? What's that?
Speaker 4: It explains John too, because John, he's all the right thing,
Speaker 4: but has no basis in his explanation why he believes them.
Speaker 1: Well, I wasn't gonna be just through my secure intellect
Speaker 1: and reasoning.
Speaker 2: What are you talking about?
Speaker 1: But the point is, John, is that you know, uh
Speaker 1: Thomas went to a law school win in the seventies,
Speaker 1: was a classmate, was around the same time that. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that the.
Speaker 2: Clinton He's just a few years behind the Clintons.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, okay. But the point is, now you have Gorsch,
Speaker 1: who you know, studied natural law with John Finnis at
Speaker 1: Oxford and so forth. We now have a generation of
Speaker 1: jurists coming up who have had a different legal education
Speaker 1: than Rehnquist, in Scalia, in Powell, name all the others.
Speaker 2: You can't write, yeah, you could if it's yeah, you
Speaker 2: could say that Scalia Renquist. They are brought up in
Speaker 2: a time when the central problem is how do you
Speaker 2: find a principal basis for the court overturning plus e
Speaker 2: in right Brown versus Board of Education? Whereas for the
Speaker 2: following generation that you just mentioned, younger justices, the central
Speaker 2: problem is Roe versus Wade right, how do you allow
Speaker 2: court to interfing in the abortion question? Well, I think
Speaker 2: we would have more time to talk about this in
Speaker 2: future podcasts, but I think it will take one more
Speaker 2: ad break, yes, and then we'll come back for the
Speaker 2: wrap up. Steven then to have some observations to make
Speaker 2: at the end of the podcast before we wrap up.
Speaker 4: So a good friend of ours Steves in Mine. I
Speaker 4: guess John doesn't know him. Mickey Craig. I went to
Speaker 4: graduate school with Mickey Craig and actually wrote my first
Speaker 4: public published article with Mickey Craig. It was a article
Speaker 4: about Rose Bird, who was a Chief Justice of the
Speaker 4: California Supreme Court and why before the what do they
Speaker 4: call them retention elect right? But she was not retained
Speaker 4: along with two other associate justices, And I always liked
Speaker 4: to think it was because of the article didn't make
Speaker 4: a night. But Mickey was a long time professor at
Speaker 4: Hillsdale and passed away, I guess a couple of days ago.
Speaker 4: So Mikey rest in peace.
Speaker 1: Yeah, not much. Older Straussians never die, They.
Speaker 2: Just fade away.
Speaker 1: Well he was Mickey was. Oh, he was beloved. I mean,
Speaker 1: and I had lunch with him in November when I
Speaker 1: was at Hillsdale, but he'd want to take me lunch
Speaker 1: and I had, you know, a cheeseburger and a beer,
Speaker 1: and he had nothing because he was heading to the
Speaker 1: cardiologists that afternoon for more tests. And yeah, so you know,
Speaker 1: in retrospect, so beloved person. But then there's another passing
Speaker 1: this week of someone I never met and I never
Speaker 1: even interacted with. But it's a guy named John Ekdall
Speaker 1: who was Charlie C. W. Cook's best friend in Florida.
Speaker 1: And Charlie's taking it very hard, and I don't blame him.
Speaker 1: Ekdahl had a very strong Twitter game, among other things,
Speaker 1: and one of his treats from more than a decade
Speaker 1: ago caused a ruckus in the media. And it was
Speaker 1: very simple. He said, you know, the Ford f one
Speaker 1: point fifty and GM's pickup truck equivalent the best selling
Speaker 1: car in America. Buy a lot. It's not even close question.
Speaker 1: For the Washington Posts, New York Times, CBS News, how
Speaker 1: many of you know a single person who drives a
Speaker 1: pickup truck. You would have thought in those newsrooms that
Speaker 1: somebody had thrown a dead skunk in the middle of
Speaker 1: the There was an outrage to even bring up such
Speaker 1: an impertinent question to the sainted people in the news media.
Speaker 1: So talk about scoring a direct hit that exposed how
Speaker 1: out of touch the media is. And John was only
Speaker 1: forty seven, which is way too young. And anyway, he's
Speaker 1: getting a lot of deserved attention on Twitter and elsewhere
Speaker 1: this week. And Mickey. I may write something about Mickey.
Speaker 1: He was my housemate for a while along with John Eastman, me,
Speaker 1: John Eastman, Mickey Craig in a house we rented from
Speaker 1: Peter Drucker, the famous management consultant guy to hate.
Speaker 2: God.
Speaker 3: We didn't talk about. I do, but but I have to.
Speaker 4: I have to bring up a subject because of it
Speaker 4: that we didn't talk about, which was the which is
Speaker 4: the ongoing Nancy Guthrie saga. And it's very sad. The
Speaker 4: eighty four year old woman blah blah, blah blah blah.
Speaker 4: But oh my god, yeah, so I know exactly where
Speaker 4: she lives. It is, in fact, a very rural place,
Speaker 4: and we just got informed here where I am, I
Speaker 4: mean about seventy five miles from there. But it's across
Speaker 4: Arizona that we can no longer have the lights on
Speaker 4: our house that shine up, or we have to turn
Speaker 4: them off after ten o'clock at night because there are
Speaker 4: laws across Arizona against light pollution so that you can
Speaker 4: see the stars anyway, So that's part of the reason
Speaker 4: why it was you know. Anyway, Here's here's my argument
Speaker 4: to John when he said I should be more interested
Speaker 4: in the story. I'm actually happy about the story because
Speaker 4: my life is the political scientists such as that is
Speaker 4: and is always trying to stay ahead of all the
Speaker 4: major stories, and it leaves a whole area of news
Speaker 4: I don't even have to bother with. That's why I
Speaker 4: like about that story. But I'm sorry, she's eighty four
Speaker 4: years old. Do you know how many children are missing?
Speaker 4: Do you know how many you know?
Speaker 5: Sorry?
Speaker 4: Well, right, I don't know who Savannah Guthrie is from Adam.
Speaker 4: I guess she's some twit on a morning news show.
Speaker 3: But who cares?
Speaker 2: Why is this the Look, this is my one set,
Speaker 2: that's one story estion is why do people care so
Speaker 2: much they do?
Speaker 1: Well, Look, I've been saying my one sentence summary is
Speaker 1: this is the Lindbergh baby kidnapping of our age. And
Speaker 1: why was the Lindberg baby kit napping a big deal?
Speaker 1: Because Charles Lindberg was famous and so Lucretia you don't
Speaker 1: watch the Today Show? Well, okay for four year old woman,
Speaker 1: but look, it would not have made any news seven
Speaker 1: eighty years ago if it hadn't been Charles Lindberg's baby.
Speaker 1: In this case, this would not make news except Savannah
Speaker 1: Guthrie is watched by forty million people a day on
Speaker 1: the Today Show. Not you're not one of them, and
Speaker 1: I'm not either, But that's why And that's the only
Speaker 1: blot from the media that's made of story.
Speaker 2: Doesn't it also appeal to people's fears about their elderly
Speaker 2: parents and are they taking care of them well enough?
Speaker 2: And they're on their own And it's just just like
Speaker 2: there was right the idea that there were children being kidnapped,
Speaker 2: you know, in open daylight, and actually child kidnappings have
Speaker 2: been at an all time low when this happened, but
Speaker 2: it still caused a huge crazy when it started happening
Speaker 2: in the nineties. So it's an ansurb. I think it's
Speaker 2: more not because the case itself is of individual merit,
Speaker 2: but it does right express something about what people are
Speaker 2: worried about, because I don't I think the TV show
Speaker 2: is only showing it because the ratings are high for it.
Speaker 4: Sure Gris Faults, your friend from Outnumbered, Harris Faultner's actually
Speaker 4: grew up in that neighborhood and she is obsessed by
Speaker 4: the story. I've turned it off every single day. I
Speaker 4: just can't listen anymore. Okay, but I only did that
Speaker 4: because they have a Babylon b and I just want
Speaker 4: to make sure everybody knew what we were talking about.
Speaker 4: But before we get there, this one was sent to
Speaker 4: me by a listener who goes by the name of Way.
Speaker 4: I would have found it anyway, but it's a good one.
Speaker 4: Alarming study shows average Somali high school senior in Minnesota
Speaker 4: committing fraud at just a fifth grade level. So as
Speaker 4: we're hearing all of these stories about the fact that,
Speaker 4: as a matter of fact, university they're hiding their dei
Speaker 4: et cetera, et cetera. They still have their damn land acknowledgements,
Speaker 4: et cetera. Wife refuses to return stolen land she took
Speaker 4: from husband's side of bed. Took you guys a second,
Speaker 4: and then we had the yet another trans person to
Speaker 4: shoot up a bunch of people. I'm sure has nothing
Speaker 4: to do with those god awful drugs that they give them.
Speaker 4: Canadian reporter person announces police persons have identified gun person.
Speaker 2: You already gave that jerk away at the beginning.
Speaker 4: I know that I was the Babylon B does it better?
Speaker 4: So credit where credits do? I haven't talked about the
Speaker 4: Olympics either, don't care. Frauds suspicions arise as Somali team
Speaker 4: wins seven hundred and thirty fourth gold medal at Winter
Speaker 4: on the.
Speaker 5: And then backed by Save Act, Democrats counter with Steel
Speaker 5: Act to ban voter ID and said, but I'll steal
Speaker 5: that grewsome kidnapping, just the career boost.
Speaker 3: Crime reporter has been waiting for.
Speaker 2: Get that one.
Speaker 4: Do you remember that great line from the Don Henley
Speaker 4: song Dirty Laundry, The bubble headed bleach blond Layah.
Speaker 3: Bubble headed Bach bond that comes out.
Speaker 4: She'll tell you about the crash with a stleam in
Speaker 4: her eye.
Speaker 1: Like Jef, I hated the Eagles.
Speaker 2: Although this is from the man who likes air supply
Speaker 2: and others such that is block that does not.
Speaker 4: Mean anyway, that's a great song. I'm not a Don
Speaker 4: Henley fan, but that's a great song anyway. I just
Speaker 4: Ice leaves Minneapolis to focus on American cities. And finally,
Speaker 4: we didn't talk about this halftime either. We were going
Speaker 4: to and be see suffers bizarre technical glitch as entire
Speaker 4: halftime show broadcast in Spanish.
Speaker 1: I thought we were gonna get all the way through
Speaker 1: this episode without a bad Bunny reference, and I was
Speaker 1: afraid we weren't going to get in a Sydney Sweeney
Speaker 1: reference by just half some Okay, I.
Speaker 4: Wait before wait, before you go on, I have to
Speaker 4: tell you one thing. So I've been having trouble in
Speaker 4: my teaching my class with doom. All these used to
Speaker 4: work perfectly. They you know, they messed it up. But
Speaker 4: here's the crazy part. All of the directions inside of
Speaker 4: my learning management system where zoom.
Speaker 3: Is are in Spanish, and when I get back.
Speaker 2: To English, that could happen to a better person.
Speaker 3: I got and they come back in Spanish. Right, it's
Speaker 3: the technical glitch.
Speaker 2: I wish I could tell you I hacked your system
Speaker 2: and did that, because that would be beautiful. Always drink
Speaker 2: your withiskiny, buy more books and Steve. What is the
Speaker 2: latest message from our AI rulers?
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm trying to change this up a little bit,
Speaker 1: but I couldn't resist.
Speaker 2: John.
Speaker 1: I asked them for what what chat GBT describes as
Speaker 1: the extremely niche genre of John U natural law jokes.
Speaker 2: Oh, I was really worried you're going to start talking
Speaker 2: about aerial pollution.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, no no, no, I even I am not
Speaker 1: that mean to you. Okay, John Hughes's version of natural law.
Speaker 1: We hold these truths to be self evident unless the
Speaker 1: president thinks otherwise. Uh a quitnas. Natural law is rooted
Speaker 1: in human reason, John U. Natural law is rooted in
Speaker 1: executive discretion. Except that's actually kind of true in a
Speaker 1: certain but okay.
Speaker 2: Yes, I agree.
Speaker 1: Let's see there's a natural law says unjust laws are
Speaker 1: not true laws. John U says, let's not rush to
Speaker 1: moral conclusions when memos are still being drafted.
Speaker 2: All right, that's pretty clever. A.
Speaker 1: There's a bunch of these, and I'll skip over them.
Speaker 1: The Founding Fathers reacted to on you, James Madison reading
Speaker 1: expensive executive power theory. We wrote an entire constitution to
Speaker 1: avoid this exact email. There's more of these. They're fun,
Speaker 1: they're good one liners.
Speaker 2: But well, thanks for that, Steve and everyone, thanks for
Speaker 2: joining us. Thank you to the live live chat audience
Speaker 2: and all your contributions. I wish I hope people can
Speaker 2: get a chance to read them with a view recording
Speaker 2: of the podcast, because Steve and Lucretia have been wildly
Speaker 2: responding to the comments. I of course never read any comments,
Speaker 2: so it would be doubly hard for me to actually
Speaker 2: ever read live chat and participate. Yeah, but there's been
Speaker 2: a lot of fun, I think, for both the hosts
Speaker 2: and the audience. So thank you very much for joining
Speaker 2: and we'll see you next week.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Ricochet, join the conversation.