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.

The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Can You Tariff a Vibe Shift?

Episode length: 1h

Subscribe to 3 Whisky Happy HourSubscribe

Was the Supreme Court's tariff case Friday a no-lose case for conservatives, as Steve argues in this fast-paced episode, or a serious setback for President Trump? We were just surprised John Yoo had any voice left at all to break it down for us after being on call throughout the day for Fox News, but he saved his best for us. Hint: The fact that the three liberals on the Court wrote concurring opinions disagreeing with Chief Justice Roberts's reasoning behind the decision suggests some useful mischief at work in the decision.

The second half of this episode turns briefly to whether the "vibe shift" against wokism is really taking place, with caveats about whether it will survive Trump's presidency, or be reversed by the next Democrat who lies their way into the White House. Not only is the Wokerati engaging in "massive resistance" to steps to end government-sponsored racism and human nature-denying trans-axels, but some Democrats are darkly threatening retribution for people and institutions that are abandoning DEI and other wokist totems right now.

Hosts:
John Yoo'Lucretia'Steve Hayward

Discussion (3)

  • Dr.Guido@DrGuido

    The amazing stubbornness of Trump is a wonder...he still speaks as if the tariffs are being paid by Chinese or German or Swiss companies/exporters! Mirabile dictu! The positive impact of widespread deregulation and drive towards energy independence and 100% expensing of capital equipment is saving his bacon....his gratuitous insults targeting Barrett and Gorsuch GAIN HIM NOTHING.

  • LibertyDefender@LibertyDefender

    Before this 3WHH episode started, I was treated to a breathy spoken invitation from Lucretia, to subscribe to Henry Olsen's Conservative Crossroads podcast. The invitation was so seductive that I was reminded of the I Dream of Jeannie episode in which Jeannie's evil sister fed shredded cardboard to astronaut Roger Healey, who raved about the dish because he was so smitten with Jeannie's sister.

    I don't mean to be the turd in the punchbowl (the DO NOT ENTER sign at the Conservative Crossroads?), but Henry Olsen

    • just a week ago explained to the Ricochet Podcast how he's come to recognize that FDR's New Deal policies brought the US out of the Great Depression;
    • appears oblivious to the fact that modern opinion polls are conducted not to gauge public opinion, but to shape it; and
    • a year or two ago explained that Yogi Berra was famous for saying "it's over when it's over."

    I don't understand why Ricochetti of the highest order promote Henry Olsen.

  • LibertyDefender@LibertyDefender

    One point regarding Dread Coward Roberts' abysmal opinion in NFIB v. Sibelius (2012): by holding that the individual mandate in the PPACA was a tax, Dread Coward Roberts endorsed an unconstitutional statute. The PPACA as signed into law by Barack Obama was passed in reconciliation, and did not originate in the House of Representatives.

    Readers will (should) recall that Scott Brown had been elected US Senator in Massachusetts, to fill the seat left vacant after Ted Kennedy's death. Scott Brown had campaigned that he would vote against the PPACA, and his vote would have denied the Senate Democrats cloture, thus the Republican (threat of) filibuster would prevent the Senate from passing the House-originated version. The Senate-originated version was instead passed in reconciliation, in a procedural sleight of hand to avoid a Senate vote.

    What frosts me the most about that whole OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional act by Dread Coward Roberts is the silence of the entire right on the issue. I have brought the issue up in conservative fora hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, and the closest anyone came to addressing the issue was James C. Capretta's opinion that the Supreme Court would never address the glaring unconstitutionality of a tax bill not originating in the House of Representatives, since SCOTUS would regard it as a political question.

    A political question created out of whole cloth by Dread Coward Roberts.