Has there been a more momentous week for the Supreme Court ever? The Court went three-for-three on the key cases this week (Carson, on school choice; Bruen, on gun rights: and Dobbs, overturning Roe and Casey), not simply on the decision of the specific cases at hand, but the broader reasoning behind the decisions. Indeed this week may come some day to be be seen as the equivalent of the infamous “revolution of 1937” that saw the Court move left in response to New Deal political pressure. (And there may be more good news that partially undoes 1937 next week—stay tuned.)

John Yoo joins Lucretia and me to break down some of the larger significance of the Bruen and Dobbs decisions, which we celebrated with pledges to splurge on really great whisky, or in John’s case, a double-quarter-pounder with cheese (as seen nearby). Now that’s living it up!

In particular, Justice Thomas’s majority opinion in Bruen and his concurrence in Dobbs hopefully point in a major new direction for originalist jurisprudence, and he manages to do this while trolling the left in the most amusing ways.

As Steve remarks at the beginning, “sometimes you just have to take the sweet with the sweet.”

Subscribe to Power Line 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.

There are 10 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    I totally agree with Jon on unenumerated rights. 

     

    • #1
  2. Dr.Guido Member
    Dr.Guido
    @DrGuido

    Sorry…for us non-lawyers, when I look at the court in 1936 I’m not clear as to what ‘Constitutional’ right was taken away. I see Butler and ACA and some talk about Dred Scott  but ….a little help, please.

    • #2
  3. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Dr.Guido (View Comment):

    Sorry…for us non-lawyers, when I look at the court in 1936 I’m not clear as to what ‘Constitutional’ right was taken away. I see Butler and ACA and some talk about Dred Scott but ….a little help, please.

    A big step in the long march to communism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    It’s really nuts when you hear a conservative lawyer explain it.

    • #3
  4. Steven Hayward Podcaster
    Steven Hayward
    @StevenHayward

    Dr.Guido (View Comment):

    Sorry…for us non-lawyers, when I look at the court in 1936 I’m not clear as to what ‘Constitutional’ right was taken away. I see Butler and ACA and some talk about Dred Scott but ….a little help, please.

    Freedom of contract (actually before 1937, but also West Coast Hotel; Blaisdell, etc); vast extension of the Commerce Clause to regulate virtually anything (Wickard; Carolene Products); evisceration of the non-delegation doctrine (Laughlin Steel, etc.)

    • #4
  5. Steven Hayward Podcaster
    Steven Hayward
    @StevenHayward

    Dr.Guido (View Comment):

    Sorry…for us non-lawyers, when I look at the court in 1936 I’m not clear as to what ‘Constitutional’ right was taken away. I see Butler and ACA and some talk about Dred Scott but ….a little help, please.

    Also, John was off: 1937 was the key year, not 1936. It is typical to see the phrase “revolution of 1937” in law review articles and even book chapter titles.

    Maybe we need to do a podcast/seminar on these cases?

    • #5
  6. Locke'd Member
    Locke'd
    @Locked

    Steve often mentions that he is putting a link or some reference into the show notes but I don’t ever see them. Where do I find the official show notes? Would also like a reference for the music at the end – often very good but to me, not a music aficionado, unfamiliar. 

    Thanks 

    • #6
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Steven Hayward (View Comment):

    Dr.Guido (View Comment):

    Sorry…for us non-lawyers, when I look at the court in 1936 I’m not clear as to what ‘Constitutional’ right was taken away. I see Butler and ACA and some talk about Dred Scott but ….a little help, please.

    Also, John was off: 1937 was the key year, not 1936. It is typical to see the phrase “revolution of 1937” in law review articles and even book chapter titles.

    Maybe we need to do a podcast/seminar on these cases?

    OMG I’d love that. Send it to my kids.

    • #7
  8. Dr.Guido Member
    Dr.Guido
    @DrGuido

    Steven Hayward (View Comment):

    Dr.Guido (View Comment):

    Sorry…for us non-lawyers, when I look at the court in 1936 I’m not clear as to what ‘Constitutional’ right was taken away. I see Butler and ACA and some talk about Dred Scott but ….a little help, please.

    Also, John was off: 1937 was the key year, not 1936. It is typical to see the phrase “revolution of 1937” in law review articles and even book chapter titles.

    Maybe we need to do a podcast/seminar on these cases?

    Thank You! I was not sure what I was missing and/or not understanding and/or ….?

    • #8
  9. Dr.Guido Member
    Dr.Guido
    @DrGuido

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Dr.Guido (View Comment):

    Sorry…for us non-lawyers, when I look at the court in 1936 I’m not clear as to what ‘Constitutional’ right was taken away. I see Butler and ACA and some talk about Dred Scott but ….a little help, please.

    A big step in the long march to communism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    It’s really nuts when you hear a conservative lawyer explain it.

    Thanks!

    • #9
  10. LibertyDefender Member
    LibertyDefender
    @LibertyDefender

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Dr.Guido (View Comment):

    Sorry…for us non-lawyers, when I look at the court in 1936 I’m not clear as to what ‘Constitutional’ right was taken away. I see Butler and ACA and some talk about Dred Scott but ….a little help, please.

    A big step in the long march to communism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    It’s really nuts when you hear a conservative lawyer explain it.

    This video from Reason.com is outdated and slightly misses the mark on its analysis, but it lays out well the facts in Wickard v. Filburn, so that anyone can recognize how insane the Supreme Court’s holding in that case was: growing and consuming wheat entirely within the bounds of your own property (i.e. without a single commercial transaction) is interstate commerce.

     

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