This week on Law Talk with Epstein and Yoo, a frank discussion on guns: what the President can do (not much), what Congress should do, and the overall constitutionality of federal gun control in general (shout out to Adam Freedman!) and the difficulties of dealing with guns through the mental health system. Then, we pivot to discuss the eminently silly bill to end Presidential term limits. We wind up with the Professors’ opinions on Clarence Thomas making his first utterance in court in years. And also, unlikely as it may seem, Richard unpacks a joke — although to be fair to our esteemed legal scholar, it’s not a very good one. 

It’s the law: every one can benefit from Epstein and Yoo’s legal advice by subscribing to this podcast here. Direct link is here.

EJHill is packing heat.

Subscribe to Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik in iTunes (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 iTunes or by RSS feed.

There are 12 comments.

  1. Member
    Israel P.: Download is #35. · 57 minutes ago


    • #1
    • January 18, 2013 at 1:18 am
    • Like
  2. Inactive

    Do we really need that little “intro” by Rob on every friggin’ podcast?!

    • #2
    • January 18, 2013 at 3:04 am
    • Like
  3. Member

    The photoshops just keep getting better and better.

    • #3
    • January 18, 2013 at 9:38 am
    • Like
  4. Member

    Download is #35.

    • #4
    • January 18, 2013 at 12:19 pm
    • Like
  5. Thatcher
    Matt Travis: Do we really need that little “intro” by Rob on every friggin’ podcast?! · January 18, 2013 at 2:04am

    I, for one, find Rob’s voice calming, like spending a day in a secluded Zen retreat featuring a bubbling stream and possibly some nachos.

    • #5
    • January 20, 2013 at 8:55 am
    • Like
  6. Thatcher

    Prof. Epstein made a comment in the podcast that I find more than a little disturbing. I’m paraphrasing, but in regards to the discussion surrounding term limits for Congress, he alluded to the idea that we’d lose institutional knowledge about how laws are made, procedural and rules knowledge that would be lost if we had more frequent turnover.

    Well. Let’s just say that decades of institutional knowledge have put us exactly where we are today, with thousands of pages of laws, regulations, with more added every year, that virtually no one can logically interpret. Obamacare is the perfect example of what’s wrong with institutional knowledge – a massive bill, cobbled together, little to no discussion, but certainly plenty of knowledge about how to get it rammed through Congress, when nobody had even bothered to read the “bill” in its entirety.

    You can’t tout the benefits of institutional knowledge on the one hand, and on the other say that we’re passing too many laws and the regulatory burden is far too high. An inactive Congress, one that does little to no work other than passing a budget for everyone to see, should be our New Normal.

    • #6
    • January 20, 2013 at 9:00 am
    • Like
  7. Thatcher

    Great podcast, though – lots of good discussion on the ridiculous results of Biden’s Double Extra Action Task Force With Enhanced Hairplug Danger. If the goal was to mollify the base with this work, and the executive orders, I’m not sure that what was offered would even rise to that level, since it’s just more of the same of what we already have. 

    The fact that we have an executive order stating that we should enforce our laws is one in a large series of indicators that at least our presidency, if not the Republic, may just be about ready to leap over a shark. Only in a country where our Dept. of “Justice” ships guns to Mexico, resulting in the deaths of hundreds, do we get an executive lecture/order telling us we, someone, anyone, needs to enforce gun laws.

    This is our President. Congratulations, America!

    • #7
    • January 20, 2013 at 9:05 am
    • Like
  8. Inactive


    You mentioned an upcoming podcast would have Q&A. I’d like to get my question in the queue now, if I may. In discussing Yale Law School, R Epstein mentioned he had strong disagreements with A Bickel. Please ask him to elaborate and to weave in his insights on R Bork, too. Naturally, I would welcome an opportunity to hear J Yoo’s thoughts on these two men as well. Thanks.

    • #8
    • January 20, 2013 at 11:43 am
    • Like
  9. Inactive

    What about 1, six year presidential term. No worry about re-election and less exhaustion than 8 years. Limit Senate to 3 terms; Congress to 4; federal judges to 15; Supremes are harder – maybe an age limit.

    • #9
    • January 21, 2013 at 4:11 am
    • Like
  10. Thatcher

    The reason that a Presidential Term Limit makes a lot of sense is precisely for the situation we have now: We have a celebrity President who, if able to run for a third term likely would run and would stand a great chance of winning again because of his status as a cult-like figure in the eyes of a large segment of the population.

    The Executive’s ability to shape the Third Branch given such a long term is far too dangerous, as concentrating power in the hands of either party or especially one man for so long could result in a political singularity.

    Even given that neither political party can simply create such a figure at will more than once each 100 years or so, limiting the chance that the Presidency becomes more imperial than it currently is seems wise.

    • #10
    • January 22, 2013 at 4:03 am
    • Like
  11. Thatcher

    If I recall, Bill Clinton was heard to toss around the willingness to serve a third non-consecutive term.

    Because he’s big like that.

    • #11
    • January 22, 2013 at 5:22 am
    • Like
  12. Inactive

    At about 21:00 Prof Epstein says:

    “You look at the NRA, Oh my God who are these people why are they saying the things that they do? They make themselves into such buffoons that they give credibility to the people who are shall we say earnest but misguided on the other side of the debate.”

    Without, however, stating particulars of the things the NRA are saying that he believes make themselves into buffoons.

    Without cherry picking some asinine statement from one of 4,000,000 members; but limiting himself to Wayne LaPierre or other official spokesperson, what is it that Prof Epstein has in mind as a buffoonish statement?

    Maybe he can expound on this in the next podcast.

    • #12
    • January 26, 2013 at 11:30 am
    • Like