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.
This week on Law Talk, the Professors Epstein and Yoo (ably guided by Troy Senik) revisit the bad choice they will have to make this November and delve into who they might (or might not vote for), whether or not we should change the way we elect vice-presidents, the legalities of hacking and the alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election process, the Texas voter ID law, John and Richard weigh in on James Comey’s press conference, and a quick opinion on the curious comments by Justice Ginsberg.
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.
Casper
Get premium mattresses for a fraction of the price delivered to your door! Casper is revolutionizing the mattress industry by cutting the cost of dealing with resellers and showrooms and passing that savings directly to the consumer. Get $50 off your first purchase! Go to Casper.com/ricochet/ and use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout. Terms and Conditions apply.
The Great Courses
The Great Courses Plus is offering our listeners a chance to stream hundreds of their courses for FREE by going to thegreatcoursesplus.com/ricochet.
Thanks again Gents.
John’s assesment of Comey and Roberts’ preoccupation with the appearance of “political independence” of their respective agency and court are in my view spot on. I would characterize their positions as a dodge and a failure of abiding their oaths. Parse it as you may, “protecting the institution” is in my view cowardice masqurading as integrity.
It is not a PR issue of the agency or club of justices that matters. It is the function of justice under the Constitution that the republic depends upon in exactly these difficult circumstances that should prevail. And, these two leaders and bodies both punted at the critical down.
On a lighter note, Richard’s answer of ” yes” was simply off the seismic chart in its devastating brevity.
The effect: strangely disorienting.
I have to disagree with John on the vice president not being elected. I might agree if the Veep wasn’t in line to succeed to the presidency if the president is incapacitated.
I have thought similar to Richard; if the vice presidential candidates were running, I’d have an easier time voting. I also think John’s statement that the idea that Russia has data to use should not be a cause for celebration just because it appears they are unloading on Hillary at this time. I think Putin probably has stuff on both candidates.
Intriguing Epstein assertion at 25 minute mark:
My devout hope is that both presidential nominees will stand aside — That’s a zero probability — and let their two vice-presidential candidates run. It shows you what the dangers of an open election are that you get these two as the candidates; when they actually pick something, what people believe about both of them is that they did a pretty good job.
I hyperventilate trying to stay up with Epstein’s machine gun brilliance, but what is he expressing here?
An aversion to open primaries? Probably not, as Hillary would have walked home in a closed system.
Preference for candidates chosen by pre-modern party bosses?
Or maybe a preference for parliamentary government with party leaders chosen by the parliamentary party?
Another superb show. Always impressed at how Epstein and Yoo can disagree with precision, wit and respect. Wish World Cup refs had a small fraction of Senik’s talent.
These shows are always a bit chaotic. But my point was that the primary system has each party pick its nominee by a relatively closed system. And it turns out that the party who is most successful in that derby could be far from desirable in the general election.
Both Clinton and Trump have strong negatives that I regard as disabling. But each party picked its candidate without scant regard for the general election. Not so with the vice presidential nominees, which are looking forward to that election only. So those choices are both more sensible than the presidential nominees. Indeed, there are such strong negatives about both presidential nominees, who knows what will come up when they are in office. But it is easy to think of scenarios under which new disclosures or new indiscretions could force an incumbent for office, so low is the current state of American politics.
I’m thicker than I realized. I thought the comment was concerning possible Russian blackmail because of what was found in the emails, or that release of information from the emails could be used to affect the election. The Veep candidates should run because there’s nothing in the emails about them, since no one knew who they’d be.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote a wonderful essay on how much damage the vice presidency has caused this country, I’d advise anyone interested in history to read it. I agree that our two current presidential candidates are more prone to impeachment than any in modern memory, which makes it more frustrating that the Republican Party has nominated a man for VP that loudly and proudly proclaims he does not believe in the theory of evolution or that tobacco causes cancer.
OK, but is there a song “I fought the law and I won HA HA HA HA HA HA”?
Every time I listen to this podcast I have to play it at 1/2 speed to fully digest everything Richard has to say. Playing it at regular speed is like competing in a hot dog eating contest at Nathans