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: Hur, Harried, Hopeless, and Fiery!

Subscribe to 3 Whisky Happy HourSubscribe

Move over "Republicans pounce" as the favorite media deflection. We now know that when an old man yells at clouds—or members of Congress—the media fall in line and declare it "fiery."

Well the 3WHH is authentically fiery! Four habanero spicy! This week more than ever.

After dissecting the Hur testimony and its missed opportunities, we take on the issue of whether Biden is playing senile on purpose, what to make of the Tik-Tok forced sale proposal, what to make of Chuck Schumer's proposal for an putsch in Israel, and finally, another round in the ring on constitutional originalism, prompted by Frank DiVito's article out this week, "Can Constitutional Originalism Overcome Our Crisis?"

Hosts:
John Yoo'Lucretia'Steve Hayward

Discussion (6)

  • Rightfromthestart@Rightfromthestart
    Several questionably risque references, tsk, tsk, not that I mind at all BUT I was banned immediately and forever from commenting on Powerline for much less so I’m coming here once again to try to implore Steve to intercede for me to obtain a pardon from Mr. Johnson’s terrible swift sword.
  • WilliamWarford@WilliamWarford

    I don't think Biden was faking senility in his deposition, but in answer to John's question of what would be the upside for Biden in doing that, I would say perhaps he knew Hur had him dead to rights and thought if he faked senility, Hur might find him to be a "well-meaning old man with a poor memory" and decide the jury would never convict and therefore decline to pursue the case.

  • KenLange@KenLange

    Steve, John and Lucrecia, you guys usually think pretty good, but you sure missed it on this one. The only moral approach to interpreting the constitution is the original meaning of the principles described in the text, not the text itself. Lucrecia's use of the 4th amendment is disingenuous. It doesn't just mention "papers", but "person, house, and all possessions" as well. The totality of the text prompts an interpretation that includes documents no matter how produced or how instantiated (electronic). No one thinks that the freedom of speech, only applies to persons engaged in the mechanics of making a speech.

    I don't know if SCOTUS has ever applied contract law to the constitution, but it is obviously a contract between the governed and the government, and as such, certain fundamentals of contract law must apply. Certainly a "meeting of the minds" should. If we assume for the sake of the legitimacy of the constitution that to some degree or another, a meeting of the minds was reached among the adopters of the constitution, than the meaning reached at in that meeting is the only moral interpretation possible. Is it reasonable to suspect that the founders thought they were committing their progeny to any other?

    Lastly, Our interpretation need not align to any particular degree with natural law. While several individual founding fathers may have revered natural law, there is no reason to believe that Congress as a body dedicated itself to its observation or sustenance. And even if they did, our opinion, today, that some principle as originally interpreted violates the precepts of natural law, does not empower us to choose an alternate interpretation. Just as the SCOTUS of today doesn't take it upon itself to fix stupid legislation passed by Congress.

Scroll for later comments
+1 more comment
Join the conversation

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