Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Uncommon Knowledge: A Charming Conversation
In his most recent episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson’s conversation with Richard Epstein and John Yoo focuses on the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, and Roe v. Wade, the most comprehensively and consequentially flawed Court decision in recent history. It’s a terrific show, a relaxed and thoughtful discussion with serious people about important things.
It’s always a pleasure listening to Richard Epstein, a man whose ability to speak intelligently, yet in complete pages without, apparently, pausing to breathe, has always impressed me. (I suspect his liberal use of the word “situation” has something to do with it: how many of us employ a four-syllable filler word?)
Professor Epstein is a man whose opinions I never take lightly, but I found myself in disagreement with him on the matter of Judge Barrett. He’s of the opinion that the potential political consequences don’t warrant her confirmation, and that the President should graciously defer. I understand his reasoning and agree that the risk of triggering a radical Democratic response is real. On the other hand, I think radical Democratic action is likely in any case, and am skeptical that forbearance on the part of Republicans will be met with moderation by a Democratic party that seems bent on increasingly extreme and radical transformation.
So I found myself agreeing with John Yoo, that sartorially impeccable culinary train-wreck whose recently published book is a welcome addition to the defense of President Trump by prominent intellectuals. Confirm Judge Barrett, and do it quickly.
Peter Robinson maintained his brilliant facade as the world’s most modest and congenial host, a mask that slips only on those increasingly frequent occasions when Rob Long is at his worst.
A fine episode well worth hearing. And Ricochet really does need to figure out how to host Uncommon Knowledge among its podcasts.
Published in Podcasts
On the other hand, I think radical Democratic action is likely in any case, and am skeptical that forbearance on the part of Republicans will be met with moderation by a Democratic party that seems bent on increasingly extreme and radical transformation.
You nailed it, the Left/(D)/MSM having a conniption fit based on any Trump/(R) policy proposal has become a reflexive response having little to no relationship to the actual Trump/(R) policy proposed.
It is a political Kabuki Dance played out for the benefit of their Leftist base.
I think Blue Yeti or EJ Hill pointedly pointed out to me that it’s not a podcast which is why it’s not listed with the podcasts. Having listened to the Faculty Lounge, I agree with Yoo. Dems are crazy so, unfortunately, we have to be too.
I guess that’s reasonable. But they should add it anyway. Or link it from the podcast area.
I take that back. My phone’s podcast program lists Uncommon Knowledge, and I routinely listen to the show as a podcast. So don’t let management buffalo you on this, Colleen. Let’s make them earn their preposterously large salaries.
Absolutely. The left has played hardball with SCOTUS nominations since Robert Bork. We waited far too long to put up a fight. American as a free country faces a literally existential threat.
I am tired of being told to be civil in the face of the Left. They have actual thugs roaming the streets.
Bryan,
In fairness to Richard, his concern isn’t that we be civil. He’s simply trying to avoid escalating a situation to the point where the Democratic leadership makes a serious break with norms and packs the Supreme Court. It isn’t that he’s offended at the thought of us being uncivil (though he may be), but rather that he’s concerned about things becoming disastrously heated.
I see his point, and I admit that it’s a legitimate concern. I’m just skeptical that we haven’t reached that point already.
Hank
We are at war and they have already killed a trump supporter
Things are heated disastrously.
There is a reason I am buying ammunition.
I have lost tolerance for the “don’t escalate” crowd. That is not working. The American people are tolerating brown shirts. Only time before they come for us.
That is where we are right now.
I understand.
My interest is in doing what’s best for the country. However satisfying, and justified, it might be to join the left in our methods, the most important thing, for me, is that we achieve the best results we can. Richard Epstein thinks, if I understand him correctly, that we do that by making a modest concession right now to preserve order: the Court is in a pretty good place right now, so we don’t need to do something as incendiary as pushing through a very conservative Justice over the objections of essentially every living Democrat. I get his point. I just think we’re facing the prospect of a lot of losing ahead, and I want to take what wins we can now, even at the risk of making a few of those future losses even more painful.
Above all, I want us to comply with the Constitution and the rule of law. That’s what we defend, and I think we should stand strong on that, and refuse to compromise those principles.
It’s a simulcast? I don’t think I’ve used this word since 2002
I swear the man absorbs oxygen directly from the air. Uncanny . . .
I disagree too. For too long we (conservatives, Republicans) have shied away from the fight because we’re worried about the political consequences. Well, the consequences of failing to take the left head-on year after year has resulted in the kind of incrementalism that’s gotten us to where we are today – a precipice from which there’s little chance of return. To paraphrase David Farragut, “Damn the consequences, full speed ahead.”
I think it was John who asked Richard what it would be like to have nine Richard Epsteins on the Supreme Court, and Richard said there’d be a lot of 5-4 decisions. Maybe deep inside, part of Richard wants to say, “Go ahead, Mr. President and Mr. Senate Majority Leader. Confirm this qualified woman to the Supreme Court.”
Meritorious and outstanding
When has a modest Consession worked in the past?
This is right. We have tried to make peace. Tried to get along. Compromise with the left means they win and we lose. The game is rigged against us, and if they win in November it will be more so.
I am not trying to get some cathartic release. I want my way of life not to be destroyed and that is what is on the table.
Same here. As I said, I want to do what works best to preserve the Constitution and the rule of law. None of us knows exactly what that is. I can’t go along with those who call for violence, other than in clear self-defense. But we don’t have to bend over backwards trying not to cause offense, either.
This is a notion completely detached from reality. A parade of modest concessions are what got us to this point. There is absolutely no evidence to support the fantasy that the Left will moderate their behavior if the Right would only placate them.
I always feel tempted to push back against such certainty.
In fact, we don’t know if pushing forward with the Barrett appointment will eventually cost us a lot. I think we should do it, but we really don’t know.
There are those who suggest that we adopt the bad habits of the left, the civil disobedience and the suppression of others’ free speech rights, etc. I don’t agree, but we don’t know if that would actually work better, or worse, than what we’ve done so far.
I think we’ll go ahead and confirm Barrett, and I’m glad. If the Democrats win in November and go crazy next year, we’ll never know if this was the choice that pushed them over, or if they would have done it anyway.
Do you have a good example of where modest concessions saved norms?
Bryan, you aren’t hearing me call for modest concessions. You’re hearing me call for a continuing respect for the rule of law on our part. I’m in favor of going ahead with the confirmation of Judge Barrett — even though it’s possible that Epstein is correct and it will come back to bite us in some awful way.
(Having said that, I’ll note that your question is a hard one in that it asks me to tell you something extreme that didn’t happen because of something extreme we didn’t do. There’s a lot of speculation in that, and no way of knowing whether or not we’re correct.)
Are you insulting my kids’ favorite restaurant?
PR is one of the best of the best of the best.
I have it on podcast from somewhere. It is available. If not available here.
The podcast is available to normal podcast apps. I suspect it’s a matter of royalties. Whatever it is, they should fix it.
I liken this argument to a pickpocket that picks a guys pocket every week, and every week he goes before the judge and the judge rules that compromise is in order and the pickpocket should get half the contents of the wallet. After a couple of months, there’s too little to divide, and the judge rules that the pickpocket gets the remainder of the money … and the wallet, too … because he’s the only one with any money left.
Concession and compromise seem to always work in one direction.
Okay, let’s be clear here.
When people talk about “concessions” and “compromise” in discussions like this, they’re generally talking about one of two quite distinct things.
They’re talking about making political concessions in a good-faith hope that we’ll get similar concessions in return, or simply to be civil and gracious. Or they’re talking about meeting the opposition on its own ground, using the opposition’s tactics — in this case, violence, speech suppression, intimidation, criminal disruptions, etc.
I’m with anyone who wants to say that we’ve made too many of the first kind of concession and we should make fewer in the future. We need to push back, in the politics and the culture. The left is not interested in compromise.
I don’t approve of the violence and stuff.
There may be a third way. Not engaging in lies or violence, but not expecting the other side to deal in good faith. Maybe standing pat and not being too conciliatory is also a good way.
It seems clear to me that whether the Dems intend it or not they are tearing the country apart and tearing it down.
Oh, I’m with you there. I have no expectation of good faith from the left. (There are a lot of sensible, centrist Democrats — perhaps most of them. But the progressive left is something else.)
I do believe that the left considers rules, laws, norms, fairness, and compromise to be dispensable, and will take what it believes is the most direct line to winning. That includes cheating in the election, suppressing speech, packing the Court, and making or breaking whichever rules it seems expedient to make or break. They are focused on achieving an end, and they have a self-righteous ruthlessness about it.
Are our positions intractable then? How do we deal with that?
I think my last post was about that.
We try to win the election. Every election.
You mean packing the court with originalist constitutionalists? :)
I meant how do we deal with two very different populations the Morlocks and the Eloi living harmoniously or at least peaceably as one?
Yes, that post. That is exactly how you have them live together.
Unless the Morlocks are also revolutionaries, in which case I reckon they have to be defeated.