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
Yes, they are. But the courts mean nothing to them, nor the rule of law, nor the set structure of the government, nor human empathy or respect for civility or civil rights. I’m no historian nor a soldier, but it looks like there are three ways to win: rhetoric, masses of townspeople rising up and beating up the insurrectionists, or smoldering guerilla warfare (assuming the army plays a passive role).
I can give you one: Amnesty for Illegals.
Would you like some more?
If one side ignores the rules, then there are no rules. Period.
I’d like to beat them to the punch for once. We should have packed the court in the first two years of Trump’s term.
That does not help. Obamacare is still the law of the land. I was promised that it would be repealed once we had the House. Then all of congress. Then we needed Congress and the White House.
Still. Did. Not. Happen.
Don’t tell me to vote. Voting does not change things. Not at all. Our voices are not heard. Our needs are not addressed.
We are there now.
Bryan, I’m sure you’re not alone.
I don’t think the moment calls for revolution. If you’re into that, have at it. Be careful, know what you’re pointing your gun at, try not to shoot the wrong people, etc.
I’m going to work through the electoral process for now, and continue to advocate that we follow the law.
I’m not sure if you’re characterizing Epstein or me as being certain. For the record, I don’t claim to know the future. But I can recognize patterns. Placating the Left has not worked, so I don’t see any basis to expect it to work going forward.
That’s a different discussion. This isn’t about civil disobedience or the suppression of rights. It’s about nominating a Supreme Court justice, as prescribed by the Constitution.
Sure, we’ll know. There will be not the least question about it.
If they need this as a pretext they’ll use it, unless there is a better pretext to use. But I doubt they need one anymore.
Yep. We’ve lost too much ground to the left due to incrementalism. Sometimes you have to put your foot down and say “No!” in no uncertain terms . . .
Sure! There was that time Nevill Chamberlain came back after a compromise with Adolf Hitler and . . .
Sorry, bad example.
As I’ve made pretty clear, I think we should take a no-compromise approach to the left while remaining within the law and the Constitution, remaining honest, and treating people decently.
There’s a tendency, when we get our backs up and start talking about the need to push back against the left, to speak with a kind of ambiguous bravado. It isn’t always obvious where people would like the lines to be drawn.
I have no interest in revolution, nor in adopting the worst practices of the criminal left. I don’t want anyone shouted down, don’t want riots, don’t want cheating, don’t want dishonesty. That’s their shtick and the very act of sinking to that level would cost more than I want to give.
What we can and should do is painful enough. We have to be willing to openly challenge the various progressive narratives. We have to be willing to risk offending family members and friends, to be called a racist or sexist or homophobe for pointing out that identitarian politics is ugly and stupid. Often, the challenge is to remain polite and sensible when engaged by a progressive nutjob, because people are watching and they, not the crazy leftist, are the ones we have a hope of pursuading. Sometimes it means talking to your own kids in a patient, thoughtful, compassionate way that gains you a bit of credibility, even though you think what they’re hearing in school and repeating back to you is idiotic and misguided.
I don’t want talk of revolution. I just want us to be willing to offend in a polite way.
So when is the time for revolution? When are we allowed to fight back against people burning city centers?
How is that not now already a problem?
Bryan, I suppose that’s something we each have to decide.
My own position is that I wouldn’t call for revolution unless I believed that both of the following are true:
I don’t think either of those things are even remotely true right now. We’ve gone through greater civil turmoil, even in my lifetime, than we are right now. The press has been as corrupt (though perhaps not as smug about it), the politicians as crooked. We’re in a bad place, but we’re far from the point where I’d give up on voting and the rule of law.
And we’re very far from the point where any significant number of people would support a revolution. In fact, we’re still at the point where even talking about it is likely to get one branded as kind of nutty, and I’d be hard pressed to raise an objection to that characterization.
Excellent.
I dig. The Lockean answer.
You don’t think that Trump hasn’t done that? This has been an epic success of the Trump Administration.
Please look up the meaning of “court packing” and get back to us.
Basil, don’t suggest that there is any transgression the Transgressor In Chief has not accomplished. I don’t believe it.
Well over 10 million people have died since President Trump took office. And that’s just in the United States. Those who voted for Trump have blood on their hands.
Thanks for the very nice words, Henry. But please: it’s not a podcast. Yes, we release an audio only version for the convenience of some people in our audience. But we spend a lot of time and effort to put out a video show (we used to spend a lot of money on the video too — but not in the age of COVID).
We post the video of the show on Ricochet the day it comes out. Because IT’S A TV SHOW NOT A PODCAST.
And yes, I have taken the liberty of embedding the Epstein/Yoo Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson VIDEO in your post. Hope that’s OK.
If you want to consume the show as a podcast, you are welcome to do that. But we don’t have to make it easier for you. 😜
Scott,
Don’t try to cloud my mind with facts and reasonable explanations. I don’t want sensible compromise. I want all my lilies gilded. Can’t you do that for me?
I’m not saying you should do it for free. Take the cost out of Rob’s share. I’m sure it’s fine.
Thanks,
Hank
As I said before, Blue Yeti says IT IS NOT A PODCAST. So BY has said and so it is done. 😳
This interview is a prime reason I’ve never called myself a “conservative” and shows why I don’t like “conservativism.”
Here we have a discussion with a man who advocates forcefully for torturing prisoners and another man who thinks we should surrender at every opportunity to the leftist/progressive/communists controlling the democrat party.
Since being on Ricochet, I’ve lost a lot of respect for Richard Epstein. He knows nothing about guns, but yet he spouts all sorts of ill-informed opinions about guns. Here he recognizes that a Supreme Court nomination is political, yet he thinks we should have allowed Obama to appoint the succesor to Scalia and that Trump shouldn’t appoint a successor. He can’t even be consistent in something so simple in his headlong rush to surrender political power to the democrat/communist/leftists/progressives.
I guess I should be thankful for Ricochet for further cementing my cynocism of politics.
This is more reason to admire Trump. He doesn’t listen to idiotic advice, no matter what credentials it comes from.
The Dems will do it anyway… let’s not be naive
There are a lot of sensible centrist Democrats?
I believe so. I maintain that most people, Republican and Democrat, are relatively apolitical and basically conservative. The progressive left lies about its intentions, much as Biden does right now, in order not to scare away normal people who would recoil from much of what the progressive left represents.
I think that’s why, when someone like Obama steps up and starts being overtly radical, states start throwing Democrats out of office. The left succeeds by trying to present itself as moderate, while simultaneously caricaturing centrists conservatives (like Trump) as reactionary.
Regarding justices moving left (around 43 minutes in) I wonder if part of the issue is that Dems nominate leftist ideologues whom Rep senators approve, going along with the idea that a president gets their justices, but then Rep presidents nominate relative milquetoasts and “centrists” with the hope of getting them approved without much of a fight with the Dems, They already start further to the left than one would hope. I think Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are examples of this in that they weren’t very controversial people other than what the opposition dreamed up.