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: Grading the Supreme Court Term

Episode length: 1h 3m

Subscribe to 3 Whisky Happy HourSubscribe

Well, that was quite a finish for this year's Supreme Court term, which, as usual, released the most controversial and consequential cases on the very last day of its sitting. This wrap-up episode—the first of a double-episode package for July 4 since we missed last week's regular episode—dwells a lot on the birthright citizenship case, with sharp disagreements among the 3WHH bartenders, but from there we move on to ponder the ambiguity of the "Humphrey's Straddle," and the significance of the ruling striking down one of the key pillars of government regulation of campaign financing—the so-called "coordination" rule.

We close out this first of our double-header with a celebration of America's new heroine, Sophie Cunningham, who is making us forget all about Sydney Sweeney.

Host:
Steve Hayward

Discussion (4)

  • Saint Augustine@SaintAugustine

    The meaning of the Constitution only changes when the words of the Constitution change.

    Therefore, no interpretation of a passage of the Constitution which no one at the time of its writing or ratifying would have accepted can be correct.

    Now, does anyone seriously think that anyone at the time of the writing and ratifying of the Fourteenth Amendment would have accepted the interpretation which currently governs?