5th Circuit Extends Stay of Vaccine Mandate

On today’s podcast, David and Sarah dive into vaccine mandates, religious exemptions, and the Civil ...

By and

On today’s podcast, David and Sarah dive into vaccine mandates, religious exemptions, and the Civil War. They analyze a recent court ruling blocking the Biden OSHA mandate, and then discuss what a “sincerely held religious belief” is in the eyes of the law. Finally, they conclude with a discussion of the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln, and whether he was an authoritarian who “broke” the Constitution before it was rebuilt by the Civil War amendments.

Show Notes:

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (156)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Mike Hamman

    Still hate the music, I do my best to fast forward though it. Please make the change

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Andrew Forrester

    My first comment ever is to agree with so many that said the tone of the intro music doesn't fit the tone of the podcast, which I enjoy very much!! Need something more upbeat with energy, etc. This has been way too somber and mysterious. I listen to the podcast at 1.4x speed and its still slow! Thanks for all you do!!

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Adam Z

    Old music >>> New music.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Richard.O.Sienkewicz

    Still not liking the new music.

    The old music was high-energy, upbeat, & built anticipation for lively discussion in the podcast to come.

    The new music, to me, sounds like “the duchess is displeased with you.” It just doesn’t get to the same anticipatory frame of mind.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Michael Berkowitz

    A lawyer friend had sent me the 'Times review of Feldman's book, and I had the temerity to argue that based on the review it was a combination of wrong and absurd. "Temerity", because I'm neither a lawyer nor a historian, but you don't need to be a chicken to know a bad egg. Some of the points I made (with minor edits for readability):

    Let's start with wrong: "...the United States is engaged in a national reckoning about the legacies of slavery and institutional racism." No, he and many of his fellow intellectuals are engaged in that (or claim to be). Few others are.

    Whatever the author might think about the three things Lincoln did that "broke" the Constitution, it's clear from Lincoln's writings that that isn't what he thought he was doing. I've read Lincoln's collected writings (though I'm sure there's stuff that wasn't in there -- still there was a lot) at least once, possibly twice. I'm not going to go hunting for the references, but he was well-aware of the problems with warring on the Confederacy and suspending Habeas Corpus and gave his legal reasoning as to why they were allowed under the circumstances by the Constitution. Similarly for the Emancipation Proclamation. He was keenly sensitive to the legality of his actions. He may have been mistaken, but he didn't view himself as breaking anything.

    Then there's the fact that "breaking the Constitution" is a metaphor that tells us nothing about how we should view the Constitution. There's simply no reason to view it differently after the metaphor was coined than we viewed it before.

    I don't want to overinterpret, but it seems to me that the essay is a polemic. The author doesn't like the Senate and Electoral College because they're perceived as going more for Republicans than Democrats of late, so he lists them as a compromise similar to slavery. I agree there was compromise with the smaller states, but if I recall correctly the composition and terms of the Senate are argued for in the Federalist Papers as adding value to the system, not merely the result of arm-twisting. In any case it wasn't a moral compromise like slavery.

    It's just ridiculous to say he "broke" the Constitution. You may as well say that Biden broke it with the rent moratorium, since he admitted that almost everyone told him that it was unconstitutional.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Michael Berkowitz

    Music: How about "A Mighty Fortress is Our God". On second thought, that captures the majesty of the Law but not your lighthearted banter... Maybe the Brandenburg Concerto No. 3...? As I've said before, I'm all in for Sweet Child O' Mine, but it doesn't sound like that's in the cards.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Young Riprock

    Cause and effect by the White Stripes as the new intro music.

    Collapse
  8. Brent Robbins

    Love the podcast, but really don't like the new music -- it's dull and a downer. I don't like the old music either -- too silly and trite. I'd go with with something dramatic and uplifting. Assuming you don't want to pay for rights, Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 Second movement has several parts that would be great (opening, about a minute in, others); The third movement (Allegro) of the Brandenburg Concertos No. 3 would also be excellent. If you want to pay and go a completely different direction, I really like the opening to B.B. King's "Bad Case of Love." All three would be much better than either than what you've used in the past.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Michael Berkowitz

      Just saw this. I had recommended the Brandenburg, but you beat me to it. Kudos.

      Collapse
  9. Cavaliere.John

    Instead of permission to use Sweet Child o’ Mine, has Caleb looked into hiring Slash to do a custom AO intro?

    Collapse
  10. David Robertson

    I really enjoy Advisory Opinions.

    I liked the old music and really like the current music. And I'm sure I'll like the new music if a change is made.

    And I wish Caleb and all those he loves the most blessed Thanksgiving.

    Collapse
Load More