57 Commas

On this edition of The Remnant, Jonah went around the (metaphorical) corner of the (also ...

By
24

On this edition of The Remnant, Jonah went around the (metaphorical) corner of the (also metaphorical) office and got colleague Sarah Isgur to come on the program for all sorts of legal-beagle nerdery. Sarah explains the constitutional provisions kicking into effect that are helping to slow down the chaos surrounding the November election results, what on earth is going on in Texas, and much more. Classic Remnant wonkery is then balanced out in the latter half of the show, as Jonah and Sarah both share their spiciest takes on The Queen’s Gambit and why it may not live up to the hype.

Show Notes:

–Sarah’s podcast with David French, Advisory Opinions

–Sarah’s newsletter, The Sweep

–Texas’ original jurisdiction suits against other states

–“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes”

–Centennial Crisis: The Disputed Election of 1876 by William Rehnquist

–AEI’s After the People Vote

–The “witchcraft” of signature matching

–The Bailey Cranberry Separator

–Colorable argument

–Jonah and Queen’s Gambit

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

By
Comments (24)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    CynthiaW

    I laughed very hard at the mental image of young Jonah's singing about Jewish Arbor Day in Hebrew.

    Collapse
  2. Paul A Sand

    I'm running for President in 2024, and my sole campaign pledge will be to nominate Sarah for SCOTUS.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    As an ad for AO and a glimpse at the greatness of Sarah and chemistry with Jonah, this was fantastic. I raced through most because I had heard the legal and election stuff already, but the culture stuff at the end was great. Sarah has amazing intellectual curiosity and virtuosity and her humor complements Jonah’s. I would like to hear her get the full Remnant treatment and discuss her background and interests and culture without delving into legal and election things. She would be a great recurring guest on the Remnant. Jonah mentioned on Dispatch pod perhaps another show on culture. I love glop and, while, it probably isn’t imitable, Sarah and Jonah could be the core of a separate program, or all of it. More Sarah in all her eclectic majesty will be a winner.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    One thing: In 1977 Donahue WOULD have been a pretty popular show. It was in the 70's that Donahue made his biggest splash. With the famous abortion episode in the mid 70's for instance. I only know this because it's fun to watch Milton Friedman on the show in like 79. (full episodes available on youtube)

    And I have to say compared to talking heads today, Donahue is very fair and allows his subject to make their point. (he just goes all histrionic in between)

    Special note: Phil Hartman's Donahue on SNL still makes me laugh

    I'm from eastern Indiana so I'm painfully aware of what our area of the country unleashed upon you all. (Donahue was originally a news anchor from Dayton and I grew up watching Jerry Springer read the news for channel 5 WLWT..........and yes every night the six o'clock news ended with "and until then take care of yourselves......and each other"

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    Didn't the spread dirt also occur in Escape from Alcatraz? (underrated film)

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    This is the funniest podcast in the history of the dispatch! you had me at green m and m's jonah.


    Sarah and Jonah have the most hilarious chemistry. Sarah and David are besties playfully jabbing each other in the arm. Sarah and Jonah are more like Kirk and Spock circling each other and fighting over the ahn woon.....or at least a great sitcom couple. When two stars that are overloaded with nerd particles come close there is a glorious explosion. This was my favorite

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    ARS

    Re Queen’s Gambit, Sarah is wrong about one thing but very right on another. While there has not been a woman as dominant a chess player as the one on this show, there is one who was better than Sarah is aware of. She played almost in all men’s tournaments and did well, including beating Kasparov, Karpov, etc. Think she was as highly ranked as 10th.

    What Sarah is right about is the misogyny. Kasparov says terrible things about her. Wikipedia article does a good job highlighting her awesomeness and includes Kasparov quotes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r

    Collapse
  8. Tedsisson

    Sarah brings me back to law school. Her knowledge and enthusiasm about this area of law are awe-inspiring.

    Collapse
  9. Patrick Welsh

    Sarah gets to use ALL THE JOY and ALL THE PASSION because AWESOME.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Leo

    I'm really confused about this Laches thing with regards to an election.

    There are all sorts of rules about standing in litigation, e.g. that you have to have some sort of injury in order to allow you to bring cases to court. If you haven't lost an election due to an unconstitutional rule change how can you have an injury due to it? Is this because Pennsylvania law is different so has different standing rule? Is it because the Mike Kelly is a congressman does that mean he always has standing so a Laches ruling in this case is reasonable?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Cornelius O’Brien

      As I understand it (didn't do the research), PA case law holds that a pre-election suit challenging the legality of the manner of the vote is not justiciable because the potential injury - vote dilution and tilted election outcome - is too speculative. If that's correct, the PA court's decision to dismiss the challenge on grounds of laches creates a Catch 22 under which no state law challenge can be made to an unconstitutional election law in PA. That can't be, but . . . The oddest part of that case is that the PA statute authorizing no excuse absentee ballots (which seems almost certainly inconsistent with the PA Constitution and case law), Act 77 of 2019, included a provision purporting to limit challenges to its constitutionality to a 6 month period following its enactment, and vesting original jurisdiction for challenges in the PA Supreme Court. Why no one took up the challenge is a question for people more invested than I am. The PA legislature clearly understood the law was not constitutional when passed and created a mechanism - a 6 month period within which it must be challenged in court - by which, apparently, an unconstitutional law became unassailable in a matter of months by a lack of knowledge of the general citizenry or will among those plugged in to challenge it. The net result is that a law requiring passage in the state legislature in 2 consecutive sessions then a vote of a majority of the electorate in a state-wide referendum was passed based on a bare majority of the state legislature.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Leo

        I don't think this being a Catch 22 is crazy at all, this sort of thing seems pretty common e.g. the lack of standing for defenders of Prop 8, or the issue with Qualified Immunity where clearly established precedent is never created because Qualified immunity stops the precedent getting created.

        Thanks for looking into this

        Collapse
Load More