Power Line

Well that certainly was a week. Seems more like a year now since the news that Judge Cannon declared special DoJ prosecutor Jack Smith's appointment was unconstitutional, but it was only Monday. But we didn't even get into this issue in this episode, even though weekly defense of the Constitution is in our union contract. Is there anything new or original left to be said about the political events of the week, starting with the attempted assassination of President Trump, the nomination of J.D. Vance (allowing Lurcretia to say "I told you so!" yet again—isn't this getting monotonous by this point), and then Trump's near Castroesque-length acceptance speech? Why yes—yes there is. Steve, John, and Lucretia offer several observations we haven't yet heard from the legion of other pundits and analysts, which leads to a surprisingly sharp argument about free trade and potential tariffs under a Trump-Vance administration, which extends to a vigorous discussion of another substantial import of the moment—illegal immigrants. Steve also explains why, if you listened carefully to Trump's speech, you'll see that Reaganism isn't quite dead yet, why it was also a Jedi-mind trick on Biden, and why many of the news stories about Biden's possible withdrawal from the race have a implicit subtext that party leaders really really don't want Kamala Harris either, but can't say so publicly. We end the week with our shopping lists: more popcorn for John and Steve, and more tin foil for Lucretia.

The prolonged agony of Joe Biden is causing rifts in the political universe similar to what a black hole does—a vortex sucking everything into a void beyond which lie quantum unknowns. This episode ponders a number of those unknowns as best we can. First off, we note the sudden media/Democratic Party discovery of "Project 2025," and enumerate a few items we wish would be included, like year-round McRibs at McDonalds, and an end to the designated hitter rule in the National League. Then John provides an on-scene account of this week's National Conservatism conference where he was a speaker, and where he took note for the very first time of the "trad wives" movement, which really represents an implicit final rejection of immanentizing the eschaton. From there we take up some listener requests for "explainers" about the peculiar 12th Amendment (since Trump may choose a running mate from Florida, causing confusion and uncertainty), and then the workings of the 25th Amendment, which we all agree is unlikely to work on President Biden unless he actually lapses into a coma or something. Trump can render this moot, however, if he picks Steve and Lucretia's choices for Veep; John is going for a Florida veepnom. Beneath the surface of all these issues is the knotty problem of KAH-mala. We ponder a few possibilities on this that so far we haven't heard anyone else present. Exit music this week, once against chosen for topicality: "Rift" from Phish, since some aspects of it sound like they almost could be thinking of Kamala: Last night, in the moments my thoughts were adrift And coasting a terrace, approaching a rift Through which I could spy several glimpses beneath Of the darkness the light from above could not reach I spied wings of reason, herself taking flight And upon yonder precipice saw her alight And glared back at me one last look of dismay As if she were the last one she thought I'd betray

For your listening pleasure while you fire up the grill and align your fireworks today or over the weekend, the gang assembled for a special July 4 edition of the 3WHH, with extensive discussion—and disagreement—about whether President Biden will step aside and whether Kamala Harris will replace him. Steve says Yes, John says no, Lucretia is simply horrified at the whole scene. Meanwhile, there's a good dad joke going around (so naturally Steve told it, but you'll have to listen to catch it—this is a no-spoiler show note zone man!) that sets up a pivot to the last couple of decisions of the Supreme Court term just ended, especially the case involving presidential immunity. John explains why both sides of the issue are getting it wrong, while Steve and Lucretia trump John's legalese with some good old political philosophy, enlisting as an expert witness Harvey Mansfield. Picking exit music this week was a no-brainer, given the main topic: The Clash (fits, no?), "Should I Stay or Should I Go?" Should I stay, or should I go now? Should I stay, or should I go now? If I go, there will be trouble And if I stay, it will be double So come on and let me know This indecision's bugging me If you don't want me, set me free Exactly whom I'm supposed to be Don't you know which clothes even fit me? Come on and let me know Should I cool it, or should I blow?

Last month John Yoo and Steve Hayward, larping around central Europe in search of the rule of law, happened to make the acquaintance for former (and perhaps future?) Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who graciously agreed to sit down for a conversation about his broad gauge view of the world scene right now. We heard him give a terrific speech at the Danube Institute, which you can take in at the beginning of this YouTube video. In our conversation Abbott ranges from the Ukraine War and the Middle East to the Climate Cult and the ruin of identity politics everywhere. We also digress to learn more about the origins of Australia's mandatory voting system, which reformers in the U.S. sometimes think we should try.

Has there been a worse week for the left in the last 25 years? First "Squadster" Jamal Bowman loses his House seat, then the Supreme Court delivers blow-after-blow to the foundations of the administrative state, and then Biden didn't show up for a debate. Oh, wait—he did show up, though you had to wonder whether they really intended a Weekend at Bernie's sequel. John Yoo hosts this week's episode, and manages both to coax some cheerfulness out of Lucretia, but also skillfully avoiding the important Supreme Court opinion involving The Statute That Cannot Be Named on This Podcast. We break down the highlights and lowlights of both the debate and the Supreme Court opinions, with Lucretia offering some praise for Chief Justice Roberts for a change, while just about giving up hope for Justice Barrett, who seems to be angling to become the next David Souter on the Court. To be continued with a special July 4 episode next week.

If you follow news out of Israel these days—and who doesn't?—you may have caught the story early this week that Israel's Supreme Court issued a ruling that the government may not exempt the haredim (Israel's ultra-orthodox community) from military service. The ruling went further, though, than just ending an exemption from service: the court ruled that government funding must be cut off from any yeshivas (schools) that do not comply with the ruling. Aside from the legal reasoning behind this ruling is the larger question of the continuing arrogation of power by Israel's high court. Last month John Yoo and Steve Hayward, overseas for a conference on international law, sat with with Simcha Rothman, a senior member of the Knesset who, as chair of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, has been deeply involved with proposals to reform and rein in the runaway judiciary. This controversy was roiling Israeli politics last year until the events of October 7 put it on the back burner, but we think Americans will be surprised to learn more about the peculiar circumstances of Israeli's judiciary. If you think America's judiciary can be activist and unaccountable, just wait till you hear from Simcha. Toward the end we also move on to a general discussion of the Gaza War.

We hadn't even planned to do a regular episode this week because John Yoo is over in Korea, Steve has been away at a three-day conference, and Lucretia is breaking in a new kitten. But we received urgent messages from listeners and readers asking us to please decode just what the Supreme Court did this week, especially in the Moore v U.S. case that dealt with the income tax. Expert commentary seems divided on just what the Court meant, but as John filed an amicus brief in that case, he's the ideal person to break it down for us. But not before finding a new way to torment him with a successor to the Statute That Cannot Be Named—the nitrogen cycle! And really it fits if you think about it, since the Supreme Court seems to have hit the nitrous oxide a bit too hard in this week's rulings. Finally, a look at the latest campus news, including how Columbia University is surely going to regret that Alvin Bragg dismissed charges against Columbia students who occupied and vandalized university property. Prediction: there's a 50/50 chance that Columbia doesn't even open up for in-person campus life this fall.

No sooner do we have a "reunion" episode last week than travel schedules blow it all up again. With John Yoo away on another junket (supposedly teaching a summer law seminar somewhere, but really in search of more elusive McRibs), Lucretia and Steve decided to do a live episode where they pondered what might be called the "meta-narrative" (that would be "McNarrative" to John Yoo) behind the sharply differing constitutional views of left and right. Steve argues that behind the left's primal drive for power that can explain the outcome-oriented constitutionalism of the left on display since the Progressive Era lies a more sinister but less recognized aspect of leftist politics: American leftists are basically socialist revolutionaries, but rather than conduct direct revolution (with certain isolated exceptions), they prefer to use the rule of law to subvert the rule of law. Steve thinks an important clue to understanding this dynamic (about which too many conservatives and Republicans are clueless) can be found in a reconsideration of . . . the Spanish Civil War. (See Nathan Pinkoski's fine essay reviewing the revisionist literature that essentially says everything you think you know about teh Spanish Civil War is wrong, and just imagine what Franco could have done if only he'd had some helicopters.) Lucretia as always is less convinced by Steve's historical analogies and, having had three espressos after lunch and before taping, offers her own special sauce to understanding the problem, yet somehow omitted the usual snark about Steve's whisky of the week, Laphroaig Quarter-Cask. Finally, in honor of Pride Month, some topical exit music this week from the great Jonathan Richman. And thanks to the many Power Line readers who tuned in for the live taping. Sorry we didn't get to more of your questions and comments.

The Three Whisky Happy Hour bartenders are finally back in the same time zone, and Lucretia fills in Steve and John about what happened while they were away partying in Europe. We mostly skip over doting on Biden's dotage, and take up Jed Rubenfeld's argument that Trump isn't technically a "convicted felon" yet, and might have strong case for immediate relief from the Supreme Court. We finally have a long-postponed update on the situation in Ukraine, where there have been a number of developments over the last two weeks that make the war more volatile. The French are sending in troops ('advisers,' but that sounds too familiar), while we have apparently greenlit Ukraine to attack inside Russian with our weapons—so long as we approve the targets. What could go wrong? (And why is Hungary opposing the NATO position on Ukraine? Not for the reasons you read in the American media. . .) Finally, for our Article of the Week we take up the issue of climate change litigation, which John wrote about a few days ago for National Review, and which Steve is working separately on an article about European lawfare in this domain.

BUDAPEST, June 5: This Sunday the member states of the European Union will be going to the polls to elect their members of the European Parliament. I don't exactly know just what the European Parliament does either, and it has become boring viewing ever since Nigel Farage departed the European Parliament after Brexit. But there is intense campaigning underway. The streets of Budapest are lined with campaign posters, and there was a campaign march last Saturday with tens of thousands turning out. Most of the polls suggest that right-of-center "populist" parties are likely to see the largest gains in this round of elections, though likely not large enough to command a coalition majority, but we'll have to see. But wait! There's more! On July 4—an auspicuous day for Americans obviously—Britain heads to the polls for a general election, and all of the polls indicate the Conservative Party is heading for an epic wipeout at the hands of Labour. What explains the Tories' dismal prospects just five years after their largest landslide win in 70 years? To say they have underperformed the last five years under Boris Johnson and his successors is an understatement. From COVID lockdowns to Net-Zero energy madness, who needs the Tories when you can get real socialism from Labour? And just how will the Tories dust themselves off and recover? I sat down a few days back with John O'Sullivan to sort it all out. John has had a long and distinguished career in journalism and politics, having served as editor of National Review in the late 1980s and 1990s, and as chief speechwriter for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for a time. Nowadays he is the president of the Danube Institute here in Budapest, where he overseas an active program of visiting journalists, academics, and political figures from all over the globe.

Lucretia hosts this episode from her bunker in an undisclosed bunker in the desert southwest while Steve and John are still galavanting over in Europe. And as hinted in a Power Line post, she is thermo-nuclear furious about the Trump verdict. Rather than rehash the details of the case, which everyone has picked over thoroughly by this point, the whisky bar considers what at means, and what may or should happen next. Lucretia thinks the American republica died on May 30 (USA, 1776 to May 30, 2024, RIP), while Steve thinks this is another dismal turning point comparable to the way the demagogic attack on Robert Bork in 1987 poisoned and embittered our judicial politics ever since. The connecting thread between the two: Joe Biden, who may be the single-most destructive figure in American politics in the last 50 years—worse even than Obama, who was at least subtle in his contempt for the United States. It was Biden who gave in to the progressive left over Bork in 1987, and now giving in to the progressive left's Trump Derangement Syndrome and warping our legal order. John looks beyond the appeals in the New York courts to a possible motion for a writ of mandamus from the U.S. Supreme Court, while all three whisky swillers agree that gane theory tells us that the only way to stop this kind of partisan lawfare is for Republicans to teach Democrats that two can play this game. And Lucretia has a list! Do Republicans have the stomach for it? Doubtful.

This week's special episode originates in Budapest, where John Yoo and I were presenting at a two-day conference on the decay of the rule of law in Europe. You think things are bad with the U.S. judiciary? It's much worse over here. (I'll post some video highlights when they are available.) In any case, because of the time difference and other challenges, Lucretia couldn't join us, so we have a guest host holding down her spot as the third host (and also to maintain the crucial two-against-John ratio), and we have decided to give him his very own Roman-inspired pseudonym, "Hadleius Arkesius." We indulge way too much time with our opening banter and general discussion of our experience pondering the problem of the decay of the rule of law before getting to the main event, which is a conversation with Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, who is professor of law at George Mason University's Scalia Law School, and head of the international law department at the Kohelet Policy Forum, one of Israel's largest think tanks. Prof. Kontorovich divides his time between the United States and Israel. A few weeks back Eugene wrote a bracing article in Tablet on "The Ugly Lessons of October 7," and we review the article with him along with developments of the last week, such as the move of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Our conversation with Eugene begins around the 18 minute mark.

Listeners want to know from John: did Justice Clarence Thomas let us down with his ruling in this week's 7 - 2 decision upholding the unique funding structure of Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), which she designed precisely to avoid congressional control as much as possible? John says no, and makes a persuasive three-part case for why Thomas's opinion is thoroughgoing originalism, and good history to boot. If we want to get rid of Warren's regulatory handiwork (AND WE DO!), it will be to be done directly by Congress, rather than indirectly by the courts. This week also marked the 70th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, which we have deplored before on account of the poor reasoning for the halfway right result, but a our Article of the Week from our friend Shep Melnick of Boston College draws our attention to some ongoing ambiguities of Brown that still afflict our civil rights law. You'd think after 70 years we might have figured it out, but no—and worse, the ambiguity is likely on purpose, because it suits the shifting strategy and tactics of the identitarian left. Other topics covered briefly this week include the collapsing case against Trump in Manhattan, Trump's VP sweepstakes (you can scratch Kristi Noem from the list), the latest Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition and King Charles's ghastly portrait (hard to say which is worse here), Harrison Butker's cultural butt kick, and, finally, how to devise some tests to judge whether higher education is truly reversing its multi-decade slide into pernicious leftism.

This classic format episode features Steve in a one-on-one conversation with with Jeremy Carl, author of a dynamite (almost literally) new book entitled The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart. Jeremy commits heresy in this book, offerng statistics that you aren't supposed to mention, and truths that, in an earlier age, might have got you burned at the stake. In publishing this book Jeremy joins the ranks of fellow brave souls such as Heather Mac Donald, Steve Sailer, Zach Goldberg, and a handful of others who do not shrink from challenging the enforced orthodoxy that approves of anti-white discrimination and scapegoating. It is, Jeremy rightly notes, a formula that if continued much longer will divide the nation so badly that we won't be able to live together. He thinks the old fashioned principle of basic human equality rightly understood, and old ethic of the "melting pot" that brought together different ethnicities into a common citizenship and shared national identity needs to be restored, and soon. He offers some suggestions, some difficult, some happily already starting to happen. One good sign: the book is getting a lot of attention. Maybe the ice is finally breaking.

John Yoo hosts this week's episode from exile in Austin, Texas, where he humors Steve and Lucretia's the extra-legal views on the Trump trials and tribulations in a Manhattan courtroom, and speculate how Trump's "Letter from the Rikers Island Jail" would read (though it will be more likely in the form of Tweets or TruthSocial posts). Have we discovered a trial judge who seems to have no judgment at all. Certainly we have a president without judgment, and we begin with pondering the question of just when it was that Bernie Sanders became president, because it is impossible to see how a Sanders administration would differ from everything the Biden administration has done. Steve notes a recent American Conservative article that picks up on parts of the Hur report on Biden. While everybody focused on the parts of the report that dealt with Biden's senility, other parts of the report show that Biden has actually had terrible judgment for his entire political career. Finally, we look at Steve's City-Journal article on the parallels between 1968 and today, and wonder how it is possible for so many of our "leaders" in high education to have so little good judgment or common sense about what ought to be done. (Lucretia recommends pepper-bullets, which sound like some kind of high-velocity jalapenos.)

There was a lot of listener and reader interest in our too brief comments on the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act in our last episode, and we realized this issue deserved keeping the whisky bar open after the usual 2 am closing time to extend our treatment of the issue, yielding this short special episode. To recap: Lucretia thinks it is a stupid idea (hence, "Don't murder a man who is committing suicide"), while John thought it was also unsound on basic free speech principles. Steve was, naturally, in the middle, ending up as road kill for his analysis of why Republicans thought there were some political mischief to be made. So we decided to order another round of drinks (or, in Lucretia's case, four margaritas to honor Cinco de Mayo) and try to go through the issue more thoroughly, especially taking account of David Bernstein's observations at National Review Online that there's a lot of disinformation about what the bill does and doesn't do. We also wanted to take up the argument Harry Jaffa argued more than 60 years ago that a free society could, under certain circumstances, curtail the speech of Nazis, Communists, and . . . anti-Semites? . . . in defense of a free society. Jaffa argued: “Does a free society prove false to itself if it denies civil liberties to Communists, Nazis, or anyone else who would use these liberties, if he could, as a means of destroying the free society? The answer, I believe, is now plain that it does not. Is saying this I do not counsel, or even justify, any particular measure for dealing with persons of such description. What is right in any case depends on the facts of that case, and I am here dealing only with principles, not their application. However, those who think every denial of civil liberties is equally derogatory of the character of a free society, without reference to the character of the persons being denied, make this fundamental error: they confuse ends with means. . . [But] it is seldom either expedient or wise to suppress advocacy of even inhuman doctrines in a community like ours, it is not for that reason unjust.” Does the current campus scene arise to this standard? What does prudence counsel? The normally quarrelsome threesome at the whisky bar arrive at surprising agreement on the matter. Hint: We rather like Jaffa’s conclusion to his classic essay: “The more we can accomplish by opinion, the less we will have to do by law.”

Lucretia hosts this week's episode, reminding us once again that Republicans are living up to their reputation as "the stupid party" with the proposed "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act" that seems to have overlooked this quaint old thing called the First Amendment. Steve gamely tries to defend the political strategy behind it, but Lucretia is having none of it (putting her in rare alignment with the New York Times), wondering why anyone would want to distract attention away from Democrats tieing themselves in electoral hangman's knots over the anti-Semitism raging wild inside their party and their wholly-owned subsidiary college campuses. Republicans ought to impose a gag order on themselves, and crusade against the gag order on Trump in his current trial in New York. Concerning which, John has several observations. And about that campus scene: another week, and another data point for Steve's thesis that "it's going to get worse before it gets worse." About the only sensible conclusion is that somewhere in the Great Beyond, Tom Wolfe is behind the whole current scene. Maybe we can still get a sequel from him, Bonfire of the Inanities.

Today is May Day, but also the Victims of Communism Memorial Day, and as such today is the prefect days for this classic-hybrid format podcast, featuring Steve Hayward in a conversation with Elizabeth Spalding, chair of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. (Elizabeth is also Senior Fellow at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and Visiting Fellow at the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College.) The Foundation has opened the Victims of Communism Museum in downtown Washington DC, and you should put it on your itinerary for your next visit to the nation's capital. We call this a "hybrid" format because it comes in two parts. Following the conversation with Elizabeth, this episode offers Steve's recent speech at the Victims of Communism Museum about Reagan and Churchill on the Cold War, a major part of Steve's book about the two great statesmen.

We're going up a day earlier than usual this week, partly because our constantly irregular travel schedules complicated things again, but more importantly to be timely, as John, Steve, and Lucretia have LOTS of thoughts on the Supreme Court argument Thursday about whether ex-presidents should enjoy broad immunity for any or all acts they took while in office. Steve and Lucretia think the president does, while John thinks textual support for the proposition is lacking. Steve and Lucretia respond with an appeal to first principles, and enlist as an expert witness Harvey Mansfield, because of his unique book on the inherent ambivalence of executive power even in a constitutional republic, Taming the Prince. As usual, we fought to a draw. Our second subject is the ongoing Kristalnacht on campus. There's not much new to say except to calibrate how cowardly university administrators continue to be, and note that even some liberals, like George Packer in The Atlantic (who provides our article of the week, "The Campus-Left Occupation That Broke Higher Education") are starting to figure out what conservatives have known about higher education for two generations now. It's as if no one ever bothered to notice Closing of the American Mind.

This week's ad-free episode is probably better thought of as a Two Whisky Happy Hour, because John Yoo is away on a lecture- and Philly-cheesesteak-procurement tour back east, and Lucretia is out of action right now, too, though she appears in this episode by proxy, so to speak. So two whiskies it is. Last weekend, Lucretia and I offered a keynote session for Ammo Grrrll's annual CommenterCon conference in Phoenix, which is an annual gathering of Ammo Grrrll's best friends and devoted fans from around the country. My theme was "Will it get worse before it gets worse?", and Lucretia offered some thoughts on the future of free speech. We had some technical difficulties with our sound recording devices, so the recording has a sudden and noticeable quality shift right in the middle, and you can't always make out the audience questions perfectly, but we think listeners will still enjoy most of it.