Law Talk has hit the century mark! And as Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo open up the faculty lounge for their 100th episode, they’re taking listener questions. After a brief analysis of the situation in Charlottesville, they tackle everything from the Necessary and Proper Clause to the best Chinese food in Connecticut. Along the way, they relitigate the Civil War, explore the secrets to Richard’s marital success, debate judicial review, weigh the merits of a new constitutional convention, and sneak in the first ever Law Talk analysis of the O.J. trial.

Subscribe to Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsors!



Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 10 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin

    It sounds just like “Smart Girl Politics” episode 52.  Actually, that one was just a repeat episode.

    This episode just won’t download.

    • #1
  2. John Montanari Member
    John Montanari
    1. Audio file please? Thanks!
    • #2
  3. Israel P. Inactive
    Israel P.

    There is no “play” icon.

    • #3
  4. ctlaw Coolidge

    @max, iTunes says “Episode Unavailable”.

    • #4
  5. JeffHawkins Coolidge

    Yeah, I think there’s a problem in the link (yeah the name of the mp3 file is https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/ )

    Downcast gives an error when trying to download

    • #5
  6. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti

    File is there now, folks.   Our apologies for the technical issue.

    • #6
  7. Troy Senik Contributor
    Troy Senik

    Blue Yeti (View Comment):
    File is there now, folks. Our apologies for the technical issue.

    In Yeti’s defense, we had one hell of an after party.

    • #7
  8. B. Hugh Mann Inactive
    B. Hugh Mann

    Can’t understand for the life of me how Katz Deli gets a mention but the professors have not been there.  You guys are famous so the owner just might come by and speak to you!  (How would I know that??)

    • #8
  9. Ralphie Inactive

    Thanks for taking my question.  I was most interested in who would be voting on a new constitution, and didn’t think today we would trust the common people to vote on something like that. I’m not even sure I would. I have heard people who profess to be conservative say they want their social security because they paid for it. I also know a conservative that worked for the local government that says he was promised his retirement and he should get it. Everyone is a conservative and wants limited government except when they are getting something.  My dad talked like a conservative his whole life, but when it came to voting was a Democrat because he didn’t want to lose his Social Security.

    It is interesting that John and Richard, both as expert as anyone on the Constitution, would be eliminated as representatives. It is kind of like the underwear gnome for those hoping to regain a sense of security that the Constitution always provided and seems to be slipping away. 1. call convention 2. ? 3. Original Constitution of US approved for  ratification.

    Originally I brought up Scalia, and I am reminded that Scalia said there is a method for changing the Constitution, and it is not by 9 lawyers on the Supreme Court.  That is probably the biggest frustration I have with the Constitution today.  There seems to be a de facto repeal of the freedom of speech and religion today.

    • #9
  10. A-Squared Inactive

    Professor Yoo, you said in the podcast that Lee chose slavery over the union, I think that is blatantly wrong.  Lee chose what he thought of as his country over the union.  Lee opposed secession and had mixed thoughts on slavery, he most certainly did not “choose slavery” over anything, he simply could not raise arms against his country (Virginia).

    Also, I agree that terminology matters.  The war between 1861-1865 is not properly called a civil war, because the South never wanted to take over the federal government, they simply wanted to leave it.  As a result, you comment about Lincoln (to paraphrase – that a minority wanted to override the majority) is wrong on its face. Wanting to leave an organization is the polar opposite of imposing your views on others.

    • #10
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.