Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

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.

Sycophants and Brutuses

Subscribe to The Ricochet PodcastSubscribe

Another action packed show: Is the lockdown over or is this just intermission? Hey, did John Bolton write a book? Did the Supreme Court hand down some decisions?

Leading off our guest spots this week is Coleman Hughes who has been on our radar for a while. In this moment, we thought it was high time he was on your's, too. Be sure and read his essay Stories and Data: Reflections on race, riots, and police at City Journal as we discuss on the show. His other essays are also well worth your time.

Then, Commentary Magazine Senior Editor Abe Greenwald (he of the world famous Commentary Podcast) stops by to discuss The Great Unraveling, the must-read Op-Ed up their site.

Finally, Peter Robinson has his moment on the Wheel, and with the help of Ricochet member @Weeping, we say so long to Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima.

Music from this week's show: Everyday People by Sly and The Family Stone

Hosts:
James LileksPeter RobinsonRob Long
Guests:
Abe GreenwaldColeman Hughes

Discussion (49)

  • kedavis@kedavis

    Regarding Peter's exasperation over "originalist" Gorsuch et al deciding that "sex" in a law from the 60s couldn't possibly include LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ because they never thought of such a thing back then...

    Couldn't the same logic be used regarding the term "men" - as in "all men are created equal" - coming from a time when blacks were not considered to be "men" (or "people")?

    I think the Supremes were stupidly wrong on that decision, but I'm not sure Peter's argument is a good one, if looked at closely.

  • kedavis@kedavis

    Regarding recognizing Republicans in New York - or anywhere else - I like how one wag (can't remember who) put it: It's easy to tell a Republican from a Democrat these days. The Republican will be arguing for gun rights. And the Democrat will be arguing AGAINST free speech.

  • Mark Alexander@MarkAlexander
    Replyingtokedavis

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Couldn’t the same logic be used regarding the term “men” – as in “all men are created equal” – coming from a time when blacks were not considered to be “men” (or “people”)?

    No. The Declaration is not the Law of the land. The Constitution is. The whole point of the Constitutionally defined amendment process is for the people’s reps to change definitions (meanings), a power which is reserved to Congress/states/people. When the Justices of the Supreme Court see themselves as amenders in this way, the corruption is immediate and obvious. They usurp the clearly defined process.

    But it’s easy for Justices to be slowly corrupted by the desire to do “good,” and now with Roberts, to be liked.

Scroll for later comments
+44 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 49 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.