Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.
In what may be the most wide-ranging episode of the 3WHH yet, the troika ranges from the implications of the Fox News settlement with Dominion for the defective NY Times v. Sullivan doctrine (and the old article that prompted Steve's story of being threatened once with a libel suit is here), to an extended discussion of the natural law arguments on abortion—the topic aborted last week for lack of time—and lastly to a look at notable political movies with the unlikely offering from Lucretia that an underrated moral-political movie worthy of note is . . . The Devil in Miss Jones??!!
Needless to say John and Steve didn't see that coming, and didn't know quite what to say. And this doesn't include our new segment, "Lucretia's Featured Rant of the Week," which debuted with a much deserved blast at the Department of Justice.
Steve gets his revenge at the very end, with exit music drawn from his favorite recent political movie that John and Lucretia have embargoed from further mention on the 3WHH (but if you're curious you can read about it here and here.)
Hosted by Steve Hayward, with guests JYJohn Yoo and "Lucretia"
Discussion (17)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
For John on abortion: If you believe that there is a specific date or time when natural rights apply, then what about individuals born with conditions such as Down syndrome or any other physical or intellectual disability? Natural law would suggest that rights apply regardless of immutable characteristics, such as gender, skin color, or number of chromosomes. For example, would someone born without arms be denied the protections of the Bill of Rights because their arms did not fully develop? Would John say to this person, "Sorry, but because your arms didn't develop passed week 2, you are not considered a person, at most 3/5th"?
If one believes that there is a point when natural law applies, it opens up the possibility of questioning to whom it applies, including groups such as black people, women, or disabled individuals. This position becomes arbitrary and goes against the principles of natural law. Designating the moment of conception as the point of granting protections is the only rational approach.
It is a cheeky position to argue that if one believes abortion is acceptable up to a certain point, it would be challenging to fundamentally argue with someone who advocates for slavery.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
One can’t help but remember how Rachel Maddow got OAN’s libel suit dropped by a judge who ruled that her comment saying the rival news network “really literally is paid Russian propaganda” was “an obvious exaggeration.” The law as pure sophistry. . . . As the Founders and other early nineteenth-century thinkers knew well, without a virtuous citizenry there can be no checks and balances however well thought out and constructed the framework. Following historian Mercy Otis Warren, “True liberty can only result from a virtuous citizenry and cannot be managed or maintained by purely institutional manipulation,” I think the Founders would see their great experiment as a huge disappointment and, following Jefferson, question whether revolution might be needed (clearly an exaggeration, no?).
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
For Lucretia, since it's already in my media library.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I taught Liberty Valance as well. To my film classes. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Did not teach The Devil in Miss Jones. However, Lucretia is once again correct in that it does seem to have attained a certain level of legitimacy not usually given to that particular genre. It was even reviewed (quite favorably) by Roger Ebert.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
John asserted that juries can protect people against biased civil service people in the JD. What do you do in the situation of D.C. juries which are far from impartial and aren’t protecting J6 defendants.
You're seeing five of 17 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.