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.
Another whirlwird week of controversies that exceeded our bandwidth to keep up (or at least to compress into an hour), but John Yoo, this week's host, leads us in revisiting the question of "birthright citizenship" under the 14th Amendment, which the Supreme Court has rather unusually agreed to take up in May—surprisingly late for such and important oral argument. We take note of the growing number of scholars who think the current conventional wisdom is not a slam dunk at all! Apparently at least four Juctices agree.
From there we discuss whether Trump's attack on Harvard is correctly calibrated, with Steve, in a rare moment, being more extreme than Lucretia on this issue. The Harvard controversy elides into a discussion of whether conservatives ought to be openly emulating the deep political strategy of Antonio Gramsci, as the Wall Street Journal pondered on Thursday. There is a lot of dissent on this point from "Vichy conservatives" who seem willing to continue losing slowly to the left.
Finally, John can't help himself, and baits Steve and Lucretia on whether, on this 250th anniversary of the "shots heard round the world" at Lexington and Concord this week in 1775 really justified revolution against British rule. Lucretia makes quick work of this provocation, and a hush fell over the virtual studio.
Hosted by John Yoo, 'Lucretia', and Steve Hayward
Discussion (6)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Yes! Lucretia and Steve! We are sick to death of the ‘reach across the aisle’ squishes while the other side is swinging chains at our heads.
Here’s J. R. Dunn in American Thinker:
‘The conservative narrative -- we’re talking about movement conservatives here, the small in-group that dominated the American center right before the appearance of Donald Trump -- was pretty much set in concrete, though not as solidly as that of the Left. Elitist, defeatist, and fixated on scholarly activity rather than practical results -- certainly nothing that would be of any help to average Americans. Its goal was the reestablishment of an early 20th-century WASP Eden that never truly existed. As the self-described “losing side,” movement conservatives were content to sit back and wait for the trucks that would take them to the reeducation camps while discussing what Russell Kirk would make of it all.
(And what about the Republican narrative, you ask? That’s simple. It goes, “We’re just a bunch of schmucks -- don’t hit us.”)’
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Lucretia's soliloquy was marvelous. I started hearing the fife and drum like when Oliver Wendell Douglas gets wound up on Green Acres.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Lucretia hit it out of the ballpark...that was a superb homily! Thank you!
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Admittedly I would be considered a “Vichy Conservative” and do not shy away from it; I think President Trump is taking the Unitary Executive Theory way too far and don’t like it at all and also will argue he is setting the table for an AOC or someone of her ilk presidency with an executive all primed and ready.
That said…Steve and Lucretia make an interesting argument and one that I have had stewing in the back of my mind…what if this truly is the final battle…that conservative ideology and the present day progressive ideology (ideology for lack of a better term) truly cannot coexist? I am convinced that if AOC or her ilk get the Presidency they will use the Unitary Executive Theory to end the game. So is fighting clean and dirty for our principles even if we go over the line the correct method or do we try to win by argument? I don't have the answer but Steve and Lucretia bring out a very interesting if not convincing argument. I think John did have a decent comeback insinuating do we want to live in “progressive right” nation like the left would; would like to hear him flesh out that line of argument. Interesting questions to ponder…this all seems like the Deep Space 9 Episode where Captain Cisco allowed Garrick to achieve a desired goal by undesired means…
And indeed…Lucretia’s final homily was stuff of legend!!!
Excellent podcast as always!!!
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
It appears that judges don’t have to abide by legal ethics. They don’t have to recuse themselves when a family member has a financial interest in the outcome of the trial. The Constitution guarantees defendants a fair trial. That was violated for the J6ers. Conservatives are rapidly losing confidence in the Courts. John is not seeing this due to his normalcy bias. As is usual, Lucretia is correct.
You're seeing five of six comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.