“You Asked”

Once a year we throw open the doors of the faculty lounge and let the Law Talk audience ask questions of Professors Richard Epstein and John Yoo. This year’s result: a conversation that touches on everything from acquiring Greenland to whether John Adams was a constitutional scofflaw, from whether federal courts have gotten too trigger happy with injunctions to which foods make the professors wretch. Most importantly: which class did Richard struggle with in law school? The answer will … not surprise you at all.

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.

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

There are 22 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Al Sparks Thatcher
    Al Sparks
    @AlSparks

    Regarding the fixing of terms on the Supreme Court, I’m unalterably opposed to an arbitrary mandatory retirement age (for anything, not just the Supreme Court). I’m kind of disappointed in Richard Epstein’s fondness for arbitrary retirement ages (for anything, including academia, by the way).

    I don’t have a problem with fixed terms. Regarding @miffedwhitemale‘s point about confirmation battles, that’s easily solved by having the clock ticking towards the term limit upon getting appointed and sworn in. I really don’t care about whether each presidential term gets a fixed number of justices to appoint. Pick a term limit and they all are entitled to serve it regardless of how it ends and whether one president gets more justices to appoint over another. It’s not “fair.” But I don’t care about being fair towards a particular president.

    It’s significant that no state appoints its judiciary membership to lifetime terms. It’s time the federal government do the same.

    Regarding John Yoo’s point about having older members of the court serve, he seems to be implying that fixed terms would preclude having older people on the court. But the present system encourages the appointment of younger justices starting out. Having fixed terms would take less pressure off of presidents to appoint younger members in the first place. They could start out older, presumably with some more time as a member of an appeals court (federal or state).

    • #1
  2. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Thanks for calling me a superfan, guys! And thanks for answering my question.

    Rufus, congrats on getting Prof. Epstein to agree with your suggestion about an 18-year SCOTUS term limit.

    • #2
  3. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Rufus, congrats on getting Prof. Epstein to agree with your suggestion about an 18-year SCOTUS term limit.

    Honestly, I was just asking because this is not something I’m expert on. I just find Mark Levin incredibly compelling. 

    JMO, if you read everything recommended by Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, and Mises.org you would be way better off. I realize there are some contradictions in there, but it still holds true.

    • #3
  4. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

     There isn’t a shred of value added from the tax code. It’s like some stupid crazy thing from medieval times. Politicians auctioning off tax brackets and deductions at gunpoint. GOSPLAN was a more sensible institution compared to our tax code.

    • #4
  5. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Ricochet Audio Network: Most importantly: which class did Richard struggle with in law school? The answer will … not surprise you at all.

    It’s gym, right?

    • #5
  6. Blue Yeti Admin
    Blue Yeti
    @BlueYeti

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Ricochet Audio Network: Most importantly: which class did Richard struggle with in law school? The answer will … not surprise you at all.

    It’s gym, right?

    There’s no gym class in law school. 

    • #6
  7. Joe D. Lincoln
    Joe D.
    @JosephDornisch

    Will we allow homesteading in Greenland?…

    • #7
  8. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Joe D. (View Comment):

    Will we allow homesteading in Greenland?…

    After seeing photos of Greenland posted on Ricochet and elsewhere, I’m reminded of a line from the movie Forbidden Planet: “Nothing to do but throw rocks at tin cans, and we have to bring our own tin cans.”

    • #8
  9. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    I did a spittake when Troy referred to “Big Mattress” . . .

    • #9
  10. MISTER BITCOIN Member
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    I can’t believe I forgot to ask this question…

    I’m getting a head start for next year.

    question:

    was Marbury v Madison decided correctly?

    did Justice Marshall overreach with the principle of ‘judicial review’?

     

    • #10
  11. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    I can’t believe I forgot to ask this question…

    I’m getting a head start for next year.

    question:

    was Marbury v Madison decided correctly?

    did Justice Marshall overreach with the principle of ‘judicial review’?

     

    I do believe they’ve answered this question before in a previous year. Check the archives (although, unfortunately, we lost some of the earlier audio files and can no longer find them).

    • #11
  12. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Have you asked the members? some of them might have them. I don’t have Law Talk myself, but I have all of Ricochet Podcast going back to #1.

    • #12
  13. Max Ledoux Admin
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Have you asked the members? some of them might have them. I don’t have Law Talk myself, but I have all of Ricochet Podcast going back to #1.

    You do? Why? I mean, I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, it’s just that most of our podcasts are about current political issues, so they aren’t exactly evergreen. (Speculation in an episode from August, 2011, about who would win the GOP nomination in 2012, for instance, is not exactly riveting in 2019.)

    • #13
  14. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Have you asked the members? some of them might have them. I don’t have Law Talk myself, but I have all of Ricochet Podcast going back to #1.

    You do? Why? I mean, I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, it’s just that most of our podcasts are about current political issues, so they aren’t exactly evergreen. (Speculation in an episode from August, 2011, about who would win the GOP nomination in 2012, for instance, is not exactly riveting in 2019.)

    But it can be wildly entertaining. Listening to jpod on various podcasts pontificating with great certainty in October of 2016 that Trump couldn’t possibly win the election, for example.

     

    • #14
  15. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Have you asked the members? some of them might have them. I don’t have Law Talk myself, but I have all of Ricochet Podcast going back to #1.

    You do? Why? I mean, I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, it’s just that most of our podcasts are about current political issues, so they aren’t exactly evergreen. (Speculation in an episode from August, 2011, about who would win the GOP nomination in 2012, for instance, is not exactly riveting in 2019.)

    But it can be wildly entertaining. Listening to jpod on various podcasts pontificating with great certainty in October of 2016 that Trump couldn’t possibly win the election, for example.

     

     For the most part, the same people are now pontificating with great certainty that Trump can’t possibly win the 2020 election: “And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire”.

    • #15
  16. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    For me, it’s mostly because Lileks is always so good.

    • #16
  17. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I have a lawyer ethics question while we are at it. Why can Elizabeth Warren and Kamila Harris lie about Ferguson Missouri? Both the Holder DOJ and a Missouri state court held that the cop did nothing wrong. Both Elizabeth Warren and Kamila Harris literally used the word “murder”. I don’t get how “officers of the court” can lie about the justice system like that. In my opinion you should have to turn in your bar card if you’re going to do that, but I suppose the same thing is true of OJ Simpson.

    My other question is why can Elizabeth Warren lie about her heritage in her bar records and not get busted for it? My understanding is that both Harvard and Warren committed felonies with this Indian stuff.

    • #17
  18. MISTER BITCOIN Member
    MISTER BITCOIN
    @MISTERBITCOIN

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I have a lawyer ethics question while we are at it. Why can Elizabeth Warren and Kamila Harris lie about Ferguson Missouri? Both the Holder DOJ and a Missouri court held that the cop did nothing wrong. Both Elizabeth Warren and Kamila Harris literally used the word “murder”. I don’t get how “officers of the court” can lie about the justice system like that. In my opinion you should have to turn in your bar card if you’re going to do that, but I suppose the same thing is true of OJ Simpson.

    My other question is why can Elizabeth Warren lie about her heritage in her bar records and not get busted for it? My understanding is that both Harvard and Warren committed felonies with this Indian stuff.

     

    she definitely lied in Texas when she wrote Native American in 1986. I suppose it’s state law or the aegis of the american bar association?

     

    • #18
  19. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Just to be super clear about where I’m coming from, I recently heard an explanation about Bill Clinton’s perjury issues. The basic idea is, it’s bad enough when a citizen lies under oath, but it really messes up the justice system when officers of the court do it. Bill Clinton both held a bar card and was head of the justice system at the same time. Setting aside the politics, it was a slam dunk that he deserved to be impeached.

    Harris and Warren—officers of the court— are damaging the justice system similarly. Maybe it’s not as severe in it’s immediate consequences, but we just cannot have every Tom Dick and Harry lawyer doing this or the whole thing is going to fall apart.

    • #19
  20. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    FWIW

     

    • #20
  21. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    MISTER BITCOIN (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    I have a lawyer ethics question while we are at it. Why can Elizabeth Warren and Kamila Harris lie about Ferguson Missouri? Both the Holder DOJ and a Missouri court held that the cop did nothing wrong. Both Elizabeth Warren and Kamila Harris literally used the word “murder”. I don’t get how “officers of the court” can lie about the justice system like that. In my opinion you should have to turn in your bar card if you’re going to do that, but I suppose the same thing is true of OJ Simpson.

    My other question is why can Elizabeth Warren lie about her heritage in her bar records and not get busted for it? My understanding is that both Harvard and Warren committed felonies with this Indian stuff.

     

    she definitely lied in Texas when she wrote Native American in 1986. I suppose it’s state law or the aegis of the american bar association?

     

     When Hillary Clinton claimed she had been named after Edmund Hillary — he was actually still an obscure New Zealand beekeeper when she was born — she was not lying, but merely repeating a family legend.

     Similarly, Elizabeth Warren’s Native American ancestry appears to have been a family legend, perhaps based on nothing more than an ancestor’s high cheekbones. 

     On the other hand, calling the Ferguson cop a murderer seems to qualify as actionable slander. Of course, Warren and Harris are members of the elite and the cop isn’t, so a Democrat or RINO judge will give them a pass; as we recently saw in the Covington kid’s case against the Washington Post

    • #21
  22. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Just to be super clear about where I’m coming from, I recently heard an explanation about Bill Clinton’s perjury issues. The basic idea is, it’s bad enough when a citizen lies under oath, but it really messes up the justice system when officers of the court do it. Bill Clinton both held a bar card and was head of the justice system at the same time. Setting aside the politics, it was a slam dunk that he deserved to be impeached.

    Harris and Warren—officers of the court— are damaging the justice system similarly. Maybe it’s not as severe in it’s immediate consequences, but we just cannot have every Tom Dick and Harry lawyer doing this or the whole thing is going to fall apart.

    I notice your examples are probably all cisgender white males. For shame! :-)

    • #22