Support The Bulwark and subscribe today.
  Join Now

Courting Trouble? (with Prof. Steve Vladeck)

October 7, 2022
Notes
Transcript

Prof. Steve Vladeck joins the group (plus Bill Kristol) to consider how far the Supreme Court will go this term on matters of race and elections. Also, will GA really make Herschel Walker a US Senator?

Highlights & Lowlights:

Mona: Russia’s Nuclear Bluster Is a Sign of Panic – The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/putin-nuclear-weapons-threat-us-sanctions-military/671642/)

Steve: Former President Trump escalates the legal battle over classified documents, again – NPR (https://www.npr.org/2022/10/04/1126830521/former-president-trump-escalates-the-legal-battle-over-classified-documents-agai)

Bill Galston: Russian forces retreat from strategic Donetsk city a day after Moscow’s annexation of the region – CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/01/europe/ukraine-russia-lyman-donetsk-intl)

Marc Short says Trump’s post on Elaine Chao was a “racial slur” that was “obviously wrong” – CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-mitch-mcconnell-elaine-chao-racial-slur-marc-short/)

Bill Kristol: In Speedy Embrace of Herschel Walker, Republicans Make Familiar Political Bargain – The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/us/politics/herschel-walker-abortion-allegation-georgia-senate.html)

Linda: DACA remains intact as appeals court sends case challenging its legality back to lower court in Texas – The Texas Tribune (https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/05/texas-daca-appeals-court-ruling/)

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors and omissions. Ironically, the transcription service has particular problems with the word “bulwark,” so you may see it mangled as “Bullard,” “Boulart,” or even “bull word.” Enjoy!
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:07

    Welcome to Bags to differ. The Bulwark’s weekly round table discussion featuring civil conversation across the political spectrum. We range from center left to center right I’m Mona Sharon, syndicated columnist and policy editor at Global Work, and I’m joined by our regulars, Bill Galston of the Bookings Institute of The Wall Street Journal. And Linda Chavez at the Niscannon Center. Damon Linker had a death in the family this week and we sent him our sincerest condolences Sitting in for him today is the Bulwark’s own, Bill Crystal.
  • Speaker 1
    0:00:39

    Our special guest this week is Steve Lattick, Professor at the University of Texas School of Law and prolific commentator, podcaster, and blogger on all things legal, and apparently also on parenting, which is a aspect of his work that I wasn’t familiar with and we’ll have to learn more about. But thank you, one and all, for being here. We’re going to address a lot of issues today because we’re going to touch upon the supreme court term the problems of Hershel Walker in Georgia, and the tricky concept of the independent state legislature doctrine. So lots to get to. Let’s start with the supreme court.
  • Speaker 1
    0:01:22

    This term, as if last term wasn’t eventful enough. This term, the court is set to consider some free speech issues they are set to look at affirmative action. They are going to consider, as I mentioned, the independent state legislature doctrine, the Indian Child Welfare Act and whether it violates the equal protection clause and an Alabama redistricting case just to get going. So Let us begin with the case that was brought by a group of Asian Americans who claim that Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans with its submission policies. So they point to lots of data, for example, the fact that since the 1990s, the share of Asians in Harvard’s freshman class has remained stable, but The percentage of Asians in the U.
  • Speaker 1
    0:02:17

    S. Population has more than doubled. And a two thousand and nine Princeton study showed that Asians had to score one hundred and forty points higher on the SAT than whites to have the same chance of admission to top universities. Linda, I’m gonna start with you. I don’t think that anybody disputes that affirmative action leads to some unjust outcomes.
  • Speaker 1
    0:02:44

    I guess the question will be, is the supreme court, has it come to the point that Sandro Conner predicted twenty years ago that it’s outrun its benefits at this stage.
  • Speaker 2
    0:02:56

    Well, as you know, one of the many hats that I wear is I am chair of the center for equal opportunity, which is a right of center think tank that deals with issues of race. And We have studied racial preferences and college admissions for the last twenty five years. And what we find is a pattern in practice of giving weight to race and not just a, you know, pinky on the scale as it were deciding between tour more or less equally qualified candidates, but most universities that we’ve studied give hefty preference first and foremost to black students little bit less preference, but still some preference to Hispanic students. And it’s very difficult to know what’s done for Native Americans because the numbers are so small, but it’s difficult to get the data and do a meaningful analysis. But what we have also found is that these preferences do not just give advantages to black and brown students.
  • Speaker 2
    0:03:55

    They have tremendous disadvantages for Asian students. And we did a report on Harvard’s practices. And it was actually we’ve entitled that Harvard investigates Harvard. Because in fact, what we looked at was at the university’s own office of institutional research which took a look at this issue and whether or not the school was discriminating against Asian students and what we found and what OIR found more importantly was that the university went to extraordinary lengths to try to keep down the number of agents students admitted. And the rationale was that in order to have a diverse student body with all different types of people represented, If it was simply a meritocratic admission standards where grades and test scores were the primary consideration, then the school would be overwhelmingly Asian, American.
  • Speaker 2
    0:04:59

    You know, this to me strikes me as just wrong headed I mean, first of all, the whole support for affirmative action and racial preferences and admissions over the years has been predicated on the idea that black and to a less extent brown students have been discriminated against in the past. Certainly, black students work. But some creations. Asians had a horrible history of discrimination in the United States. They were excluded from the country.
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:30

    They weren’t allowed even to come here. Even if they were living here, they weren’t allowed to become citizens. So I think that this case is an extremely important one. I think that it is coupled with another case involving University of North Carolina. And I am hoping that Sondra Day O’Connor’s words meant what they said, which was that we might have needed these kinds of special programs for a certain number of years.
  • Speaker 2
    0:05:57

    But at the end of the day, they’ve got to go away. And I think they have to go away and they have to go away now.
  • Speaker 1
    0:06:03

    Steve Lattick, first of all, thank you so much for joining us. Of course, that’s revenue. A lot of people criticize affirmative action on the grounds that It’s really a matter of window dressing that the black and brown students who attend elite schools are actually already middle class or even upper class in many instances that we’re not actually helping you know, the poor or people who are discriminated against. So is it really living up to its popes that is to to provide opportunities for people who otherwise wouldn’t have them? Or is it simply giving advantages to the already advantaged?
  • Speaker 3
    0:06:40

    Well, I I think the first thing to say is that how do this conversation through the exclusive lens of Harvard University is rather a one-sided way of looking at the problem of racial diversity in our, you know, graduate and collegiate campuses. I mean, I teach at University of Texas, a public school that has had its programs challenge over the years, but that has had enormous trouble building a diverse student body along almost any access without at least some additional considerations of so called plus factors. So, you know, I think the first thing to say is that, you know, if this conversation is just about whether Harvard should have affirmative action. I think we might answer that differently than whether every single public university and private university receiving federal money should be allowed to. The second piece, and I think this is maybe where Linda and I have a little bit of daylight between us.
  • Speaker 3
    0:07:27

    You know, one of the shifts in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence with respect to affirmative action was away from the proposition that what justified these kinds of racial preferences was the amelioration of prior discrimination and toward a different concept that in general the attainment of a diverse student body, whatever that means, is a compelling interest. That states are allowed to adopt on behalf of their universities. And that the university isn’t allowed to go out and implement. And so I think if the question is, are we ameliorating prior discrimination? I think some of the concerns lender raises are pressured and pointed.
  • Speaker 3
    0:08:06

    I think the question is who’s in a better position to decide how private and public university should be able to diversify their student bodies, those entities themselves or the federal courts, you know, color me as one who thinks which should be left up to the schools. And, you know, so is it possible that Harvard’s policies in the aggregate end up discriminating against Asian Americans? I certainly think it’s possible. Is that a reason why therefore at a nationwide level we should bar every single academic institution receiving federal financial funds from adopting any kind of racial preference in his admissions program. You know, there’s a gap there to me, Mona, that I don’t think we’ve adequately bridged in this conversation.
  • Speaker 1
    0:08:50

    So I’m gonna ask Bill Galston to address that because some people think that it is important to give plus factors but they just sort of bridal at the idea that the plus factor should be a racial one. They say, absolutely, give extra bonus points to a student who comes from a difficult background who’s overcome poverty or or, you know, other things, but don’t make it racial. What do you think about that argument? I
  • Speaker 4
    0:09:16

    think it’s a pretty good argument up to a point, but I am intensely cross pressure. On this issue. On this issue, I am Robert Frost’s Liberal, you know, someone who can’t take his own side in the argument. And I say that because I see this issue through the prison of the Jewish experience a century ago, where similar arguments were made against quote unquote excessive Jewish concentrations in elite schools now being made against the quote unquote excessive concentration of Asians. You know, who are alleged to be grinds, good test takers, but somehow lacking the traits of character that be fit them for positions of leadership in American society.
  • Speaker 4
    0:10:11

    I have seen this movie before. I didn’t like it the first time and I don’t like it the second time.
  • Speaker 3
    0:10:19

    On the
  • Speaker 4
    0:10:20

    other hand, what we know for example, from the experience of Berkeley and other top tier University of California institutions, after the abolition of affirmative action in the state of California is that the immediate result was a deep plunge in the share of African American and Latino students in the top tier universities of
  • Speaker 2
    0:10:49

    state, is
  • Speaker 4
    0:10:50

    that acceptable? That is in part, I would say, political question. Is diversity a compelling state interest? Well, We could disagree on that question. I happen to think that it is better for students to grow up whether they’re in K-twelve or in college in places where they meet people who are unlike themselves, unlike in background and experience and opinion, specifically I am not sure that a pure poverty standard would capture the full diversity of America’s racial and ethnic history.
  • Speaker 4
    0:11:38

    On the other hand, am I willing to say that diversity is so compelling a standard that kids who have worked their tails off for seventeen years to qualify as the children of immigrants for positions of leadership in American society.
  • Speaker 5
    0:12:01

    Is
  • Speaker 4
    0:12:02

    the diversity rationale compelling when faced with that consequence? I’m not sure. I’m honestly not Sure. What I do know is that adopting a strictly consequentialist stance, namely society will be better off if we admit people on the basis of diversity rather than the basis of earned merit. Commits an injustice in order to secure a good.
  • Speaker 4
    0:12:32

    And that is a deep moral quandary. It
  • Speaker 1
    0:12:37

    sure is Bill Crystal, and it leads to other problems like resentment from other groups. Who feel that this advantage is being given unjustly to people based purely on skin color, which shouldn’t matter. And then there’s the problem of stigma. A lot of black students say that, you know, they they feel it acutely that they are assumed to be less qualified just because of their race because there is this practice of affirmative action. So that too makes this a very, very fraught solution to a serious societal problem.
  • Speaker 1
    0:13:13

    Where do you come down? I think I
  • Speaker 5
    0:13:15

    was once more certain than I am now that some of all racial preferences and ethic preference, as I suppose, to, should be discarded or or rules out of bounds either by the institution itself or at the state level, or maybe at the national level or maybe at the national, congressional level or as a maybe at the court level. One problem, one can imagine this being where out in different ways and a good faith way and different institutions locally and at the state level, maybe a bit at the national level, a couple things ruled out a bounds. We don’t really have that kind of functioning political and social system. Now, I would say, things tend to end up in the courts. They tend to end up now in the Supreme Court.
  • Speaker 5
    0:13:54

    They tend to end up being resolved on constitutional grounds, not even on statutory grounds where there might be a case for doing this. And there tends to be an obliteration of the public private distinction. Too because, you know, some public money is going to every college university, basically. I don’t know, honestly, and I haven’t studied the actual sort of constitutional law of this. I I imagine the the court will go in its version of an originalist direction and and sort of take justice Harlan’s line that’s in eighteen ninety six, which I’ve always admired wonderful descent and Class A that, you know, the constitution should be color blind and should not know distinctions of color.
  • Speaker 5
    0:14:28

    I mean, as justice Jackson pointed out, just this Tuesday, I think, in the actual argument on the voting rights case, it’s not clear that’s exactly the strictly originalist understanding. Of the fourteenth amendment, the effects of this decision, combined with the voting rights decision, combined with the opposition with Roe last year, brings on to me a point that will vote the Chicago pester made to me in a conversation we have up online. The notion that a lot of us, sort of, civilians had was, well, well, that was unbelievable, a huge moment that were worth forty nine years. President always struck down five to four, three recent judge justices making the majority. You know, that’s full full year.
  • Speaker 5
    0:15:05

    That only happens once every at a long time. And that’s why it’s having such a big impact. But if there’s this year’s term, the twenty two, twenty three term, could be almost as disruptive and controversial and with its own, I think unanticipated political consequences. The Supreme Court is gonna be at the middle of our political debates for a while now. And I hard to believe that’s gonna really be a healthy thing
  • Speaker 2
    0:15:26

    given our extremely polarized politics. Yeah. Well said, Linda, you wanted to make another point. Yeah. In terms of the point about diversity being what drives affirmative action programs, that is certainly true since nineteen seventy eight and the Bakken decision, which I thought even at the time when I was working at the Liberal American Federation of Teachers was a very bad decision.
  • Speaker 2
    0:15:50

    And I think diversity as a compelling state interest leaves a lot to be desired. But the other thing I wanted to point out, and this is in response to Bill. Bill is absolutely right that when they abandoned as a result of an initiative passed by the state of California, racial preference in admissions in the University of California system. There was a drop in the number of black and brown students attending Berkeley and UCLA. But what happened was, those students who were not admitted preferentially to those two flagship schools ended up in the University of California system at other schools, its schools where their grades and test cords allowed them to be able to compete on an equal footing.
  • Speaker 2
    0:16:37

    And as a result, those students actually ended up graduating. And one of the things that we found at the CEO over the the years when we’ve done our studies is that if you look six years out at graduation rates for students admitted under preferential programs, The figures are appalling. Students don’t stay in and they don’t graduate because in fact they are mismatched and there is an excellent book by one of my colleagues, Stuart Taylor, who wrote it in conjunction with Richard Sander, a professor from UCLA, that talks about the way in which these kinds of preferential admissions don’t just hurt the whites and Asian students who are not admitted because of the preferences. They also hurt the intended beneficiaries who tend to do worse in school, get lower grades, and not graduate when they attend schools where they had been mismatched in terms of their preparation. And there are other ways of doing this Bill mentioned that you could use income, which is not a perfect measure.
  • Speaker 2
    0:17:39

    You could also use something like first in your family to attend college. Giving some preference on that basis. Or you could do what Texas did, which is to say that if you graduate in the top ten percent of your graduating high school class you are entitled to attend the University of Texas system. So there are other ways to try to get diversity without resorting to using race as a proxy. Okay.
  • Speaker 2
    0:18:05

    This
  • Speaker 1
    0:18:05

    is obviously a huge topic and could swallow up the whole hour, but I just wanna touch on some of the other major cases that are coming up. As Bill Crystal mentioned, the Alabama redistricting case was just argued, I’m gonna ask Steve Lattick, whether he has thoughts on that case and anything else that you think is incredibly important this term. Sure.
  • Speaker 3
    0:18:28

    I mean, I’ll I’ll just say really briefly. I do think I mean, the mismatch thesis has been heavily criticized by others. So if you’re gonna read that, you should read the criticism as well. I would actually include Mona, the Indian child welfare act cases as well because, you know, one of the things about the last term with abortion and guns and religion is there was no race as not just the affirmative action cases this term that have the Supreme Court in the middle of a national racial debate, the Redisturgeon cases in Alabama are basically about the centerpiece of the voting rights act, section two, and whether Congress has the ability to require states to draw so called majority minority districts, that is to say, to have districts that are somehow reflective of the diverse breakdown of the state. Alabama, about twenty eight percent of its population is black.
  • Speaker 3
    0:19:20

    Black albanians live in compact areas, which under the supreme court’s precedence mean they are entitled to representative proportional apportionment in Congress. And Alabama drew a map that actually only has one district that would cover the black population a three judge district court with two Trump appointees said that this violates the voting rights act. The Supreme Court blocked that decision with no explanation allow Alabama to use a muscle maps? Steve,
  • Speaker 1
    0:19:48

    can I interrupt just to ask a clarifying question for me? The state of Alabama is arguing that if they had created a second majority black district that it would violate the constitution’s fourteenth amendment and fifteenth amendment, because it would have required them to take race into account and to draw a specifically racial district. But does the voting rights act demand that? I’m a little confused about that. So, I mean,
  • Speaker 3
    0:20:13

    the voting rights act as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in a series of cases, most prominently in nineteen eighty six case called Jingles, does in fact require legislators to take into account the sort of packing of district the representiveness of minority populations in a state, including racial minorities, for the purpose, Mona, of preventing discrimination. On the basis of race. So the argument is that — Mhmm. — right, what Alabama is proposing is not neutral. The the map Alabama proposed according to the district court discriminated against black Albanians by only having one seat in the congressional delegation that would represent out of seven right, that would represent a population that was more than two sevenths of the state population.
  • Speaker 3
    0:21:00

    So here unlike unlike in the affirmative action cases, where we have moved away from the argument that the racial preferences are a response to racial discrimination. Here there’s a direct connection. Here the argument is that Alabama is required to draw a second majority minority district because to not draw that district is to discriminate on the basis of race as the voting rights act. Has defined that. And I just wanna say really quickly.
  • Speaker 3
    0:21:25

    I mean, I don’t I don’t mean to to to say too much. What is remarkable about this case is not just that it really brings to full froth. Right? The whether the centerpiece of the civil rights movement, the voting rights act, is itself unconstitutional by creating these race infused rules. But it also, I think, really drives home how much the supreme court has injected itself into the midterms.
  • Speaker 3
    0:21:51

    Because based on the February emergency ruling on the Shadow dossier in the Alabama case, a ruling in June in a Louisiana case and how lower courts have interpreted those rulings. Mona, there are as many as ten house seats that are going to be safe Republican seats. In the midterms that had these lower court rulings not been affected or blocked by the Supreme Court would almost certainly have been safe Democratic seats. I think it reinforces both how much race is handed over this entire supreme court term and how invested the court has become for better or for worse, really in what may be who controls the house come January of twenty twenty.
  • Speaker 1
    0:22:32

    Okay. I’m also very interested in this web designer case where this web designer does not want to do gay wedding websites. She says she, of course, will serve gay clients if they want her for some other purpose, but she doesn’t believe in gay marriage because of her religion, and she says that this is unconstitutional to ask her as Colorado’s law does to perform this service. So really briefly, isn’t this like? Isn’t and tell me if it’s not, but isn’t this like the government trying to force students to say the pledge of allegiance against their consciences if they’re Jehovah’s Witnesses, the famous case from nineteen forty three?
  • Speaker 1
    0:23:14

    Yes
  • Speaker 3
    0:23:14

    and no. I mean, the difference between these case and the pledge of allegiance cases is that here you have a conflict because here you have states that say if you want to do business in our state as a condition of doing business, we are gonna prevent you from discriminating against particular people and particular types of groups. State public accommodation laws, state human rights laws, they vary, of course, from state to state. But here, the problem is not just the government compelling us to speak Here, the individual in question, the website designer, has chosen to run a business, has made a deal with the state, where she has said, I will operate, you know, if you let me operate a business in your state, if you license me to do business, I agree to comply with your regulations. And so the question really is whether it is so radical to believe that states are allowed to include among those regulations.
  • Speaker 3
    0:24:05

    Rounds for non discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, especially whereas here, Right? The claim is not, at least before the Supreme Court, that the state public accommodations law is infringing upon her religious freedom. Right? Especially where it’s simply a question of whether as a condition of doing business, I agree to speak. Just to give you a really stupid example, Right?
  • Speaker 3
    0:24:29

    If I, as a restaurant owner, am forced to put a placard in the window of my restaurant that says I gotta be on my health inspection. I don’t think we would be arguing that that the city lacks the ability to require me the restaurant owner to speak in a way that’s inconsistent with what I think my business practices are. And so the question is if we take religion out of this case as the supreme court has, why is
  • Speaker 5
    0:24:52

    this different?
  • Speaker 1
    0:24:53

    Bill Galston, you wanna comment on this? I’m
  • Speaker 4
    0:24:55

    not a lawyer and let alone a law professor, but it does strike me that the parallels may be a little bit closer. Then Steve indicated, because if I recall that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ case correctly, A CONDITION OF REMAINING IN PUBLIC SCHOOL WAS RESIDING THE PLLEGE. THEY WERE JUST BEING SENT TO DETENTION IF THEY DIDN’T. If you didn’t recite the pledge, you could be expelled from public school. Now, if I have the facts right we seem to be involved in conditionality in both of these cases.
  • Speaker 4
    0:25:34

    And I do think by the way that it won’t be possible to take religion out of this case any more than it was possible to take religion out of the Jehovah’s Witnesses case. So I’m not saying, you know, that the supreme court decision in Jehovah’s Witnesses necessarily controls the outcome of this case. But I do think that there are some significant jurisdictional parallels. This is a
  • Speaker 1
    0:26:02

    true case of rights being in conflict. It really is. Because her right to express herself as she wishes is in conflict with the right of others to public accommodations and to be respected and so on. So it’s tough one.
  • Speaker 2
    0:26:17

    All right. Let’s
  • Speaker 1
    0:26:19

    turn though to one that might have huge impacts for twenty twenty four. And that is the case of the independent state legislature theory And I remember in particular that Damon Langer, I think, perhaps in his low light of the week, one week, was expressing dismay that the supreme court had even granted cert on this doctrine, which until fairly recently, as I understand, it was considered really kind of out there So, Bill Crystal, I’m gonna start with you about your your impressions on this. So, article one, section four of the constitution says, the time place in manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. And some people are now saying that means only to the legislature, not the governor, not the state supreme court, and that’s what this case is about.
  • Speaker 5
    0:27:13

    Yeah. And not even if there’s a state constitution, there’s the legislature operates under that gives certain rules to governors and the supreme court and etcetera. So, and and election, under the extreme version, this can still be even after the election. Certainly, before it just decide to ignore the popular vote, even though while fifty states have past laws saying that the electoral vote should follow the popular vote in that state. So it would be pretty extreme to go all the way.
  • Speaker 5
    0:27:35

    I guess a lot of people think they’re sort of in between grounds where the Court could find that the North Carolina Supreme Court overreached some in striking down the North Carolina legislature apportionment, but it doesn’t mean that the legislatures have a total blank check to do things sort of after the fact and arbitrarily overturn election results. So but that’ll be a much watch case. Will they will there be a a sort of in between resolution that kind of justice Roberts? Will Roberts try to do in Roe? Maybe he’ll do in this case.
  • Speaker 5
    0:28:04

    Maybe they’ll simply not go with the doctrine, you know, five four six three. It seems like they’re pretty certainly two or three votes for it. So this is a much bigger topic, which the degree to which people like me who were basically very friendly to originalism when it was first articulated what it almost forty years ago really is Most is a correction to the kind of progressive view of a living constitution and and the war court and war courts after effects. Originalism has now become in a way a kind of almost as arbitrary as the living constitution was, as progressivism was, as Alex Vickel. Explained way back in my youth.
  • Speaker 5
    0:28:36

    And so I I think there will be it’ll be an interesting debate about constitutional interpretation that could also come out of this, but the practical meaning of it is that, again, in a very important election denial issue, which also has racial, as Steve said, more than racial connotations. It comes out of our sort of racially contested registering case, but in an election denying sort of a case with election denying implications, the court’s gonna be right in the middle of that. So again, those who thought, well, the court kind of popped up there in a row, but back to back to sort of a quiet time, not gonna happen this year. Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:08

    Steve, the second half of that sentence that I quoted earlier from article one says, but The Congress made any time by law make or alter such regulations. And also, the Congress has the power, the Federal Congress has the power to determine the when of when elections are held, not the how, so the state legislatures decide the how and the Congress decides the when. So Andy Craig at Kato had a piece about this, and he said no matter what the court rules in more, that’s the case we’re discussing today. It will remain unlawful and unconstitutional for state legislatures to overturn presidential election results after the fact. Does that give you any comfort, Steve Laddock?
  • Speaker 1
    0:29:52

    No. Because I’m not
  • Speaker 3
    0:29:54

    sure it’s true. Okay. I mean, right, we’ve been talking about Article one section four, but there’s a very similar reference to state legislatures in that part of article two that talks about the selection of presidential electors. I certainly believe and hope that there is an implicit requirement in article two, that the legislature’s provision for the selection of electors is only forward looking, and that once, say, the Texas legislature has appointed election day and a general election as the mechanism for choosing electors, it can’t change its mind after the fact. But Mona, there’s nothing in the text of Article two, the Constitution, that says that.
  • Speaker 3
    0:30:36

    And, you know, I would think that the principle constraint on that kind of remarkable assertion of power by a say, legislature would be the state constitution. And the notion that it might violate the state constitution for the legislature to so effectively just in franchise its entire populace. This is why this is such a big case because if you go all the way to the end, of the argument that the reference to legislature is to the exclusion of every other state actor. Then I don’t know how we can be confident that anything other than politics would limit the legislature in that context and just to sort of tie this back to the originalism part of the conversation, and I can’t fathom how the founders who were wary of too much federal power would have not just ratified a constitution that basically rewrote every single state constitution on the question of who had the primary say when it came to election laws. But that no one would have noticed and no one would have complained.
  • Speaker 3
    0:31:37

    And so I think that’s part of why this case is so complicated for, you know, those who are ideologically committed to that brand of original Yeah, Linda,
  • Speaker 1
    0:31:45

    that that’s such a good point. I mean, one of the most heated sources of debate when the institution was being considered initially was how much of their own authority the states would have to give up. In order to become part of this union. And, you know, as we know, the articles of consideration were too weak, and and they hadn’t required the states to surrender enough, but that was still a live issue back then. And people, you know, lots of anti constitution people you would have thought would have raised it, but nobody did.
  • Speaker 1
    0:32:17

    Well,
  • Speaker 2
    0:32:18

    right. But when has that stopped? Hardistens from, you know, making whatever argument they see fit. We’re a podcast, so you can’t see a picture, but a picture is worth a thousand words. And there is a picture on ballot media.
  • Speaker 2
    0:32:35

    That describes everything we need to know about this issue. And that is a picture of the United States showing Republicans in control of thirty chambers of state legislatures, and that is as of the last election. And if you look at the states, there are some blue states, but many more that are red. And those red states are not just in familiar red territory, you know, we expected in places like Texas and Florida, Arizona as well, but they’re also in battleground state. And that is the problem.
  • Speaker 2
    0:33:11

    You’ve got Republicans in control of legislatures in states that are the only true battleground of for presidential elections where the outcome is not pretty much predetermined before people even go to the polls. And I think that’s the problem. And what is happening here is is Republicans see this as their way to cause mischievous in twenty twenty four as they tried to do in twenty twenty. And of course, John Eastman and his whole legal theory of, you know, whose votes were gonna be counted and whether state legislatures could basically intervene and and override the will of the people was all based on this notion that Republicans control these state houses. It’s scary I think, you know, democracy could hang in the balance on this.
  • Speaker 2
    0:34:02

    And I hope that the independent state legislature’s theory, which at least three of the justices on the court now have expressed some interest in obviously all of them. The conservative justices if they embrace that and they embrace these very expansive powers for state legislatures, it’s could be the total transformation of the democracy that we’ve known for the last two hundred years. Bill Galston, this
  • Speaker 1
    0:34:29

    would be the biggest issue in states that have Republican controlled legislatures and Democratic governors or Democratic leaning supreme courts. That would also mean if the court goes pretty far in ratifying this theory, then there would be no check on the power of those legislatures, for example, to gerrymanders like crazy. And so that could have effects into the future. It’s
  • Speaker 4
    0:34:58

    easy to imagine of parade of horribles. I have to say for various reasons, I cannot bring myself to believe that the supreme court is going to go very far down this road. And if I’m wrong, then the gate is open to all manner of mischief. But the abortion case, whether you like it or not, you know, the Dobbs decision had been preceded by decades of argument everybody pretty much knew where the battle lines were not only politically, but yours, potentially, etcetera. This case is to sound like the lawyer that I’m not, is a matter of first impression for
  • Speaker 1
    0:35:46

    the
  • Speaker 4
    0:35:46

    supreme court and to make a radical decision with so little preparation either of the American public or of itself. To do so, I think would be a sign that the court has really lurched beyond an ordinary understanding of its institutional boundaries. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I also think, you know, going to one of Steve’s points, that the language of, you know, both the article one and article two can easily be interpreted without doing any violence to the text as being forward looking rather than backward looking. You know, you
  • Speaker 1
    0:36:32

    prescribe
  • Speaker 4
    0:36:35

    a, you know, a time place and manner for an election or for a selection of electors. And the idea that then you can just double back and say, well, no, I didn’t mean that. And this is what we mean, and we understand that the election has already taken place. You know, but we can change anyway. I mean, that is so far from the rule of law as understood by almost everybody as to be unthinkable.
  • Speaker 4
    0:37:03

    But let me tell you what is unthinkable. I think that it is permissible under a reasonable and interpretation of these clauses that, for example, a state legislature could decide that it, the state legislature. Would determine the slate of electors to be sent to Congress. And if it does so in advance, then it’s not clear to me on what constitutional grounds that would be defeated. Now you may say that politically, that’s wildly on popular.
  • Speaker 4
    0:37:37

    But I’m just thinking constitutionally and rather not politically, that I think would be consistent with the language of the Right.
  • Speaker 1
    0:37:45

    So let’s let me let me turn to Steve on that. Yeah. The the fact is the legislators were free to say, and I guess, still maintain the authority to say. You know, we’re going to pick our electors via lottery. That’s how we’re gonna do it, and it’s gonna take place on November third, every year, whatever.
  • Speaker 1
    0:38:03

    They could do that, but changing it retroactively does seem like a bridge too far. What do you say, Steve? I
  • Speaker 3
    0:38:09

    I think the problem is the difference between the test of Article one and the text of Article two. So I’m I’m with Bill on Article one that setting the time plays a manner of elections. Is something that states must do in advance, and that’s article one. Article two though says each state shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors. Well, the appointment of electors does not happen on election day.
  • Speaker 3
    0:38:36

    The appointment of electors happens when the electoral college meets, and the x number of electors from whoever was certified as the Victor of that state cast their vote. And so, you know, I don’t like this interpretation, but I don’t know how you can look at article two and say it is clear That
  • Speaker 1
    0:38:56

    way,
  • Speaker 2
    0:38:56

    I have
  • Speaker 1
    0:38:56

    a question. All fifty states as I understand it have passed laws saying that the electors shall be chosen based on the popular vote in their state. Right? Yes. So so clarify that.
  • Speaker 3
    0:39:07

    So imagine we actually had a state where we all agree that there was some crazy problem in the voting and that the result was just gobbledygook. And so the state had to come up with some alternative method between election day and the electoral college voting day. So forty one days after election day, right, for appointing electors. I don’t think article two prevents a state from providing an alternative mechanism for a point in electors just because we’re in the forty one days. Between election day and the electoral college voting day.
  • Speaker 3
    0:39:41

    You know, you guys are surely right that politics probably would. But I just think it’s important to stress part of why this theory has such potentially onerous implications because I don’t think the text of article two is the safety valve that we might want it to be to prevent a state from using that period to, you know, defy the interests and the preferences of their
  • Speaker 2
    0:40:08

    voters. Let us look now at one
  • Speaker 1
    0:40:10

    particular race because it’s been very much in the news and that is Hershel Walker running for Senate in the state of Georgia. This was Donald Trump’s idea that this guy would be a great candidate. From the very beginning, there were problems with his candidacy. Now, this week, it turns out that he well, he is accused of having paid for an abortion. His position on abortion is absolutest, no exceptions.
  • Speaker 1
    0:40:39

    And the Daily Vista published receipts showing that there was a woman who said he paid for her abortion, former girlfriend. He denied it. And all I’m gonna go to you first spell Crystal. The Republicans all rallied around. They said they’re just trying to attack him because He’s a black conservative and he’s still our guy and hey, nobody’s perfect.
  • Speaker 1
    0:41:03

    Have we now entered the realm of completely post truth politics where it really just doesn’t matter? Well, I think we’ve entered the
  • Speaker 5
    0:41:11

    realm where, certainly, character doesn’t matter at all. We enter that realm on October fifth whatever that was in twenty sixteen when after thirty six hours of slavery, Republicans decided the access Hollywood tape didn’t matter and as long as Trump had signed the plants to appoint federal society judges, which met basically once we’ve voted overturn Roe, all as well. And the for life movement, the social conservative movement, the respect to women movements and so forth, different parts of the Republican and social conservative base. So we’re still there, and and it turns out this is transferable. It’s not just Trump doesn’t just get a pass Peripher Walker gets a pass.
  • Speaker 5
    0:41:45

    And God knows we’ve seen him many other people get passes, Matt Gates, and at all. And so, yeah, it’s all about power. And now the fans a justification of that as well. Going forward, Churchill Walker will vote, quote, right legislation in a way that senator warnock wouldn’t, but at that point, you really are just saying in in practice that anything goes, any means, justifies the end of Republican control of the Senate, which I think slides in if I can back to our previous discussion, it is the way in which a state legislature could just to fi and be supported by more voters than one would like to think and and even excused by more sort of thought. You know, conservative elite types that one would like to think.
  • Speaker 5
    0:42:26

    For doing a version of this in in twenty twenty four, so I’m gonna need the power above all because we are in a culture war that has to be won no matter where the deficiencies of the individuals
  • Speaker 1
    0:42:37

    fighting on our side. I mean, that is the current stance of the Republican Party. Linda Christian Walker has had his moment in the sun this week. So this is now a family drama as well where he is a, I guess, Instagram and TikTok influencer and so forth and actually has been very trumpy and very conservative in quotation marks. But he came out this week in just landbasted Hersha Walker for lying and for mistreating Christian’s mother and Christian himself and its quite the soap opera.
  • Speaker 1
    0:43:16

    It is indeed, you know, we
  • Speaker 2
    0:43:17

    already found out in the course of the election that Christian Walker is not the only son of Hershel Walker. And by the way, Hershel Walker is not married to Christian’s mother nor to the other three women, by whom he had children. We know of at least four children, like four different women. And one of That’s true. He was
  • Speaker 1
    0:43:38

    married to Christian’s mother at one time.
  • Speaker 2
    0:43:40

    They’re divorced. Sorry. But he has all of these children out of wedlock. He claims not to know the woman who he apparently impregnated in two thousand and nine and for whom he paid for an abortion But it turns out today that the woman has come forward and said, well, not only does he know her, but she is the mother of one of those children. So it’s the the field of possible candidates as narrowing down to one of the baby mamas that Hersha Walker has had relationships with.
  • Speaker 2
    0:44:16

    Look, this is it would be sad if it were not so dangerous because I think Hershel Walker himself is a disturbed, not very impressive guy. I mean, I don’t know his football career may have been terrific. But he has not done very well for himself subsequently. His businesses have failed. He did not graduate from college that we claim to, not like claim to graduate, but I think he claimed to be, like, you know, in the top one percent or whatever of the class.
  • Speaker 2
    0:44:48

    You know, the way in which this man is being exploited and the fact that he is a black man. I mean, I don’t think we can take that out of the equation. The Republican Party is always looking for its black hero. It’s always looking for someone they can elevate into position of prominence and that it will then be touted that, you know, the party is not in any way, racist, that there’s no discrimination within the Republican Party or among Republicans generally. And Hersha Walker has allowed himself to be used in that way.
  • Speaker 2
    0:45:21

    And it’s all very embarrassing you almost wish that Hershey Walker would realize that the best thing for him would be to walk away. But, you know, their race is very tight. The polls don’t know whether or not we can rely on them. They had closed to to being quite close with warnock, you know, possibly beating Walker, but who knows? I mean, this could be a big red wave.
  • Speaker 2
    0:45:48

    We haven’t even talked about it, but the price of gas and OPEC and its decision to cut productions is gonna help the Republicans in the elections. So Hersha Walker is thinking to himself, you know, I could be United States senator. And so he’s hanging in there.
  • Speaker 1
    0:46:04

    Steve Lattick after Walker appeared on Sean Hannity’s show on Monday night. Denying everything. And, you know, he really did give a hostage to fortune by saying he didn’t know this woman had no idea who it could possibly be because then she came out and said, Well, you do know me because I’m the
  • Speaker 2
    0:46:19

    mother of
  • Speaker 1
    0:46:19

    one of your children. But, anyway, he denied everything. And guess what? After that appearance, his contribution skyrocketed. Knee raised, you know, half a million dollars just on that that one TV appearance.
  • Speaker 1
    0:46:34

    So we are locked in a doom loop of, you know, people choosing the reality that they like. Yeah. I mean, I think, Mona,
  • Speaker 3
    0:46:41

    the the question we should all be asking ourselves at all of it, I I spent some time asking myself this question over the last few days, is what would it take for you to vote for the party you don’t support in a case like this. And, you know, I think what where I really start to get worried about what this poor tends for the future, is, you know, it’s not just that Walker is the unfortunate character, Linda has described him to be. Is that this is specifically about abortion, which is supposed to be the red line issue for the Republican Party. And so you know, if these are the same folks who think abortion is murder, they are literally saying out loud that they would rather vote for someone who paid for a murder than a Democrat. And I just you know, one of what scares me about that is, like, if that’s true, then where is the line?
  • Speaker 3
    0:47:32

    Because my sense of I’m an amateur historian to sure. But my sense of the history of the rise of authoritarian regimes is one of the things that happens is that you know, power becomes the dominant organizing principle where holding onto power becomes an end unto itself. And where people rationalize decisions, you know, today it’s voting for someone who under my belief system paid someone else to commit a murder tomorrow. It’s maybe even worse abuse in the interest of holding on to power. And I just, you know, I don’t know how we get out of that other than people say it to themselves, you know, some things are more important than party.
  • Speaker 3
    0:48:16

    And our politics at the moment just are not supportive of that principle. So Bill Galston,
  • Speaker 1
    0:48:22

    I can hear the Republicans objecting that you know, this is there’s a history here and that they will do the what about ism and they’ll say, you know what? There were a lot of feminists who were willing to support Bill Clinton despite the fact that he abused women quite badly and was accused of of even worse than he was than was ever proved. But anyway, what we knew for sure was pretty bad. And yet, they said, well, because he has the right political positions, we’re going to support him anyway. How would you respond to that
  • Speaker 4
    0:49:02

    objection? Well, I could be glib and say the two wrongs don’t make a right. No. That’s fair.
  • Speaker 1
    0:49:07

    That’s fair. I
  • Speaker 4
    0:49:10

    do think that some of what you just described was at work. I know it’s at work this time around because I’ve been monitoring the statements of many Christian evangelical leaders. And one of them explicitly made the argument. I don’t have the reference right at hand to the effect that yes, you know, by their standards, he might be a murderer. But what we know for sure is that he will vote in the senate to prevent lots and lots and lots of murders.
  • Speaker 4
    0:49:48

    And so is it better to both for someone who isn’t personally a murderer but will authorize, you know,
  • Speaker 5
    0:49:56

    on a
  • Speaker 4
    0:49:57

    societal basis, the the commission of the deed or the other way around. So this kind of evangelical realpolitik, you know, which you saw evidence of the twenty six teen is now, you know, if I can switch from German to French, the lingua Franco of political, even geographical leaders. I’ll I’ll say one other thing. I cannot believe that the people of Georgia. We’ll send Hershel Walker to the United States Senate.
  • Speaker 4
    0:50:29

    Bill, you are tempting the evil eye. Oh, I know yeah. Mona, I I know that. I guess I guess this is this is my show to say I can’t believe that. Max is just too horrible to believe.
  • Speaker 4
    0:50:45

    Because I have to believe even if the majority of Republicans in Georgia, We’ll give him a pass, no matter what, and we’ll respond to Steve’s point by saying, you’re right. Given the current state of affairs in the country, there is nothing that could get us to
  • Speaker 2
    0:51:08

    vote for
  • Speaker 4
    0:51:10

    a Democrat. But I have to believe that five to ten percent of the population and and five percent of of Republicans are not prepared to go that far. And that is all that it will take. And if I’m wrong about this, I’m just putting a big marker out there, then I’m wrong about just about everything else. And, you know, the barely floating log of hope that I’ve been clutching desperately will turn out to be bolstered wood and sink along with me.
  • Speaker 4
    0:51:41

    If the
  • Speaker 1
    0:51:42

    Republicans of Alabama couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Roy Moore. Maybe the rep that is a significant minority of them, Bill, enough of them. Than maybe a significant minority of the Republicans in Georgia will feel the same. By the way, just to close this out, I mean, this story is is particularly embarrassing and and lurid. But the fact is, you know, there has been evidence that has come out before this that he held a gun to his ex wife’s head and threatened to blow her brains out.
  • Speaker 1
    0:52:17

    There are allegations of domestic violence against other women. And he told a story himself about chasing down somebody in a car with the intent killed him and only pulled back when he saw that the man had a bumper sticker that said, you know, Jesus saves. Wow. Now, maybe some evangelical Christians hear that story and think that’s a really inspiring tale, but a lot of people are here that hear that and think this man has some serious mental instability and doesn’t belong anywhere near the United States Senate. But we
  • Speaker 2
    0:52:50

    shall see,
  • Speaker 1
    0:52:51

    Bill, from your lips, to God’s ears, we will see —
  • Speaker 4
    0:52:55

    Right. — that’s more hopeful than the evil eye that you invoked.
  • Speaker 1
    0:53:02

    Alright. I said you were tempting it. I wasn’t calling it down upon you. Alright. Let us turn to our highlight or a low light of the week, Linda Chavez.
  • Speaker 1
    0:53:12

    Well,
  • Speaker 2
    0:53:12

    I’m gonna go for a low light of the week, and it was a decision that was handed down just last night by the fifth circuit court of appeals, basically sending back to the lower district court a decision having to do with the fate of six hundred thousand DACA recipients. You know, DACA was promulgated by the Obama administration through what I think was a very sloppily organized effort. It was done through a memorandum of understanding that was issued by the Department of Homeland Security, giving not just the right of children who had been brought here illegally to the United States by their parents when they were still children, not just giving them the right not to be deported because they had done nothing themselves to deserve that, but also gave them access to the ability to get jobs and other kinds of benefits that frankly are prohibited in federal law. And so it was badly done during the Obama years. And this administration has now issued actual regulations trying to codify the DACA program.
  • Speaker 2
    0:54:31

    And what the court has done in the fifth circuit is to send back a case involving these DACA recipients and asked the court to judge it in light of the new administration regulations. I think there’s a very low likelihood that judge Hannan, the district court judge in the case of origin is going to give protection to the DACA recipients. And therefore, once again, this is thrown to the United States Congress. If this does not promote a real
  • Speaker 1
    0:55:08

    consideration
  • Speaker 2
    0:55:10

    of passing legislation, to give protections to these kids, then America is not the America that I have known and loved all my life. Because these kids are six hundred thousand of them who are contributing members of society. They will lose their status and be unable to, you know, do all the things that other people in our society do, including work and taxes. So this is a real challenge to congress, and I don’t know that congress is up to it. They certainly haven’t been up to it to date.
  • Speaker 2
    0:55:44

    Okay.
  • Speaker 1
    0:55:45

    Thank you. Steve Lattuck. I guess this is
  • Speaker 3
    0:55:47

    also a low light in the in the spirit of Linda’s. Is the remarkable filing by former president Trump’s lawyers asking the supreme court to step back into the middle of the Mar a Lago case. And it’s remarkable because of how remarkably modest it is. The basic argument is not that the eleven circuit was wrong when it stayed judge Cannon injunction when it allowed the justice department to continue to look at the classified materials ceased from Marlago when it was searched by the FBI back in August. The basic argument is that the eleven circuit lacked something called pendant appellate jurisdiction to issue the rest of its order, which in at least some respect keeps those classified documents away from Special Master Judge Deary.
  • Speaker 3
    0:56:37

    What is so remarkable about this filing is that it is asking for incredibly little and it doesn’t even argue, let alone prove that president Trump is suffering from the kind of irreparable harm that is necessary to get any appeals court let alone the Supreme Court of the United States to issue the kind of emergency relief at Seagate. It is the kind of thing that smart lawyers file when they have a client who’s yelling at them to file something and they care about the rules of ethics. But it’s not exactly advancing any material benefit when the headlines read. Trump asking the Supreme Court to step in all he’s asking them to do is basically rearrange the deaf tears on this Titanic. So low light from the perspective of what it’s asking, low light from the perspective of how cynical we become about a supreme court that it might have been granted and low light just for reminding us of how much mischief judge Camden’s rulings have already caused.
  • Speaker 3
    0:57:33

    Quick prediction, you know, on a scale of one to ten,
  • Speaker 1
    0:57:37

    ten being most likely. What what do you think the likelihood is that the court will do anything but dismiss it? Zero. Zero. Okay.
  • Speaker 1
    0:57:44

    Thank you for that. Okay. Bill Crystal. Well, I’m
  • Speaker 5
    0:57:46

    I’m obviously a low light guy, so I’m gonna stick with the the low lights, which is appropriate, I believe. You know, you Mona, you mentioned we’re more so it’s interesting comparison. He he did get the votes of the overwhelming majority of Republicans in Alabama, but enough voted against him for Doug Jones and enough stayed home and and didn’t vote for him voted. There were a lot of there were write ins. There were a couple of third party candidates and so forth.
  • Speaker 5
    0:58:11

    Senator Shelby, the Republican senator from Alabama said he couldn’t vote for Roy Moore, and he was gonna write in someone he didn’t want to vote for a Democrat. But one forget. So for me, the big story is less more and Walker and more the reaction of the parties. In twenty seventeen, Mitch McConnell said more should withdraw from the race. Paul Ryan said that.
  • Speaker 5
    0:58:28

    The I believe the Republican committees, the NRC, and the NRC didn’t help more. He was an outcast within the party, which is one reason why enough republican state home or didn’t vote for him that he lost even in Alabama. Is that the opposite this time? Right? They’re all on board.
  • Speaker 5
    0:58:44

    Mitchell McConnell’s guys do law there at the Republican a huge Republican super PAC for senate races. So they’re all in. Not a single Republican that I know of has said, just volunteer your statement. Public elected of senior Republican elected official that g, you know, this is kind of a problem and maybe don’t vote for a Democrat if you can’t do that, but just stay home. So I think it does show something of the degeneracy of the Republican Party between twenty seventeen and twenty two.
  • Speaker 5
    0:59:09

    Not so much more in Walker’s individuals. They’re sets as much more the reaction to a Republican senate candidate in five years ago compared to today. Yeah. Really
  • Speaker 4
    0:59:18

    good point, Bill. Okay. Bill Galston. Well, you’re continuing the hopeless liberal motif. I have both a highlight and a low light.
  • Speaker 4
    0:59:29

    My highlight, what propels it into that category is Shot and Freud as much as anything else. My highlight is Ukraine’s capture of Lemann exactly twenty four hours after Vladimir Putin claimed to an exit. This was one of the clearest instances of divine justice acting with more solemnity than usual than I think I’ve ever scene. My low light, and this is a no brainer, is Donald j Trump’s incontestably racist attack on Mitch McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chow. Every time I think he’s hit bottom, he crashes through that floor and reveals that there is another floor beneath the cellar or sub seller or sub sub seller that he was previously occupying.
  • Speaker 2
    1:00:26

    It takes
  • Speaker 4
    1:00:27

    my breath away that this man was president of the United States and may well again be president of the United States. At which point, I have to say, hey, I will have to consider my option. Yeah.
  • Speaker 1
    1:00:41

    It is just it is mind boggling that we have come to this. I have a highlight, and it’s a piece written by Elliot Cohn, previously a guest on this podcast. I hope to have him back sometime soon, wrote in the Atlantic, Russia’s nuclear bluster is a sign of panic. There’s been a lot of talk about Putin’s nuclear threats and I regret to say that in several precincts of the right, on the Tucker Carlson Show and other places on Fox, you find complete appeasement of the Russians and fear prompting them to say if he threatens nuclear weapons, we have no choice but to succumb. And this is such an inversion of the conservative identity.
  • Speaker 1
    1:01:28

    I just cannot get over it. I wrote a book called useful idiots. Published in two thousand four where I talked about how Democrats had been so pucilanimists when it came to standing up to Soviet communism. And now how the the right is even more pucilanimists in its treatment of Putin.
  • Speaker 4
    1:01:48

    But anyway,
  • Speaker 1
    1:01:48

    Elliot Kone is a wonderful commentator of teachers at at the School of Advanced International Studies, John Hopkins, and author and former government official. And he says, of course, that any threat to use nuclear weapons by a country that has them is, of course, to be taken seriously. And Russia That’s particularly true of Russian. He gives the reasons. But he says, if we give in now and anyone with nuclear weapons will learn that the secret to success in the negotiation is to froth at the mouth, roll up one’s eyes and threaten a mushroom cloud.
  • Speaker 1
    1:02:21

    To yield to Putin would be as Churchill said in a different but not entirely dissimilar context to take but the first SIP from a bidder cup. And then he goes on to explain what we should do instead that includes a lot of credible threats, including the fact that if Russia were to use nuclear weapons, they would very shortly see a nuclear armed Poland, Turkey, Kazakhstan, and perhaps Finland, which would not make Russia more secure or more comfortable. So It’s a very worthwhile piece and a little bit of cold water on the people who are so eager to appease this bloodthirsty aggressor. So with that, I want to thank Steve Vladik for joining us and Bill Crystal for sitting in. I also want to thank our producer, Katie Cooper and our sound engineer, Joe Armstrong’s strong.
  • Speaker 1
    1:03:20

    Our editor today will be Jason Brown, and we want to thank our listeners and we will return next week as every week.
  • Speaker 4
    1:03:36

    You
  • Speaker 2
    1:03:36

    are worried about the economy. Inflation is high. Your paycheck doesn’t cover as much as it used to, and we live under the threat of a looming recession. And sure you’re doing okay, but you could be doing better. The afford anything
  • Speaker 4
    1:03:47

    podcast explains the economy and the market detailing how to make wise choices on the way you spend and invest. Avoid
  • Speaker 2
    1:03:53

    anything talks about how to avoid common pitfalls, how to refine your mental models, and how to think about how to think. Make smarter choices and build a better life. Afford anything wherever you listen.
An ad-free version of Beg to Differ is available exclusively to Bulwark+ members. Learn more here.