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 on The Supreme Court’s Banner Week, with John Yoo

Subscribe to 3 Whisky Happy HourSubscribe

Has there been a more momentous week for the Supreme Court ever? The Court went three-for-three on the key cases this week (Carson, on school choice; Bruen, on gun rights: and Dobbs, overturning Roe and Casey), not simply on the decision of the specific cases at hand, but the broader reasoning behind the decisions. Indeed this week may come some day to be be seen as the equivalent of the infamous "revolution of 1937" that saw the Court move left in response to New Deal political pressure. (And there may be more good news that partially undoes 1937 next week—stay tuned.)

John Yoo joins Lucretia and me to break down some of the larger significance of the Bruen and Dobbs decisions, which we celebrated with pledges to splurge on really great whisky, or in John's case, a double-quarter-pounder with cheese (as seen nearby). Now that's living it up!

In particular, Justice Thomas's majority opinion in Bruen and his concurrence in Dobbs hopefully point in a major new direction for originalist jurisprudence, and he manages to do this while trolling the left in the most amusing ways.

As Steve remarks at the beginning, "sometimes you just have to take the sweet with the sweet."

Host:
Steve Hayward
Guests:
JYJohn Yoo"Lucretia"

Discussion (10)

  • Banned Member@BryanGStephens

    I totally agree with Jon on unenumerated rights.

  • Dr.Guido@DrGuido

    Sorry...for us non-lawyers, when I look at the court in 1936 I'm not clear as to what 'Constitutional' right was taken away. I see Butler and ACA and some talk about Dred Scott but ....a little help, please.

  • Steven Hayward@StevenHayward
    ReplyingtoDr.Guido

    Dr.Guido (View Comment):

    Sorry…for us non-lawyers, when I look at the court in 1936 I’m not clear as to what ‘Constitutional’ right was taken away. I see Butler and ACA and some talk about Dred Scott but ….a little help, please.

    Freedom of contract (actually before 1937, but also West Coast Hotel; Blaisdell, etc); vast extension of the Commerce Clause to regulate virtually anything (Wickard; Carolene Products); evisceration of the non-delegation doctrine (Laughlin Steel, etc.)

  • Steven Hayward@StevenHayward
    ReplyingtoDr.Guido

    Dr.Guido (View Comment):

    Sorry…for us non-lawyers, when I look at the court in 1936 I’m not clear as to what ‘Constitutional’ right was taken away. I see Butler and ACA and some talk about Dred Scott but ….a little help, please.

    Also, John was off: 1937 was the key year, not 1936. It is typical to see the phrase "revolution of 1937" in law review articles and even book chapter titles.

    Maybe we need to do a podcast/seminar on these cases?

Scroll for later comments
+5 more comments
Join the conversation

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