Crimes, Plural

With Joe Biden’s popularity rising in battleground states (according to several recent polls), Democratic lobbyists ...

By
37

With Joe Biden’s popularity rising in battleground states (according to several recent polls), Democratic lobbyists and party officials are urging the presidential candidate to try and win over purple and even conservative-leaning states like Georgia and Texas. But most of his advisors are urging a more conservative path, encouraging him to focus on states he knows he can win. David and Sarah discuss these opposing strategies and offer their insights on what a winning 2020 presidential campaign should keep in mind.

In today’s episode, they also discuss the president’s pardoning power, theological and constitutional arguments related to the death penalty, and Trump’s tweet about re-examining the tax-exempt status of academic institutions that “are about Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education.” They wrap the podcast by responding to a listener’s question about what to include in an intro philosophy course.

Show Notes:

–New York Times piece on warring factions within Biden’s campaign, Fox News poll, University of Texas poll, Dallas Morning News poll, CBS/YouGov poll.

-Death penalty opinion.

-Andrew Kent’s congressional testimony.

–Ex Parte Garland case from 1866.

–Notes on Virginia ratifying convention from Brookings Institution.

–“The Traditional Interpretation of the Pardon Power Is Wrong” Atlantic article by Corey Brettschneider and Jeffrey K. Tulis.

-John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

By
Comments (37)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Kimberley Bayer

    Hey, what's with the dig at public defenders? I've been one for ten years and I can tell you that we are some of the fiercest, smartest, most dedicated advocates around. So many times I'll watch a client get assigned to a fabulous PD, only for their family to scrape together all the money they have to hire some paid lawyer who takes all their money and doesn't do a thing for them.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    BrandonAlleman

    Was the 'enhanced scrutiny' of tea party groups by the IRS really because of their point of view? Or was it because the IRS was doing its job to make sure these organizations were not lobbying or or against particular candidates or lobbying for or against specific legislation.

    I've always been a skeptic of this scandal even being a scandal. In argument that these organizations deserved scrutiny and there was no scandal, how many of them survived the Obama administration? Was there any fire (adverse decisions) against them or just smoke (scrutiny) and alleged bias?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    T.K. Small

    David, you left us hanging… What was your final grade in Prof. Fallon's class without the benefit of your detailed outline?

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Rehm Maham

    Always a great listen I just wanted to add a dimension to the talk about Biden and Texas. There might be some merit in doing some things in Texas to try and help Democrats running for State House as if they can flip nine seats, they would have the majority, get a Democratic Speaker, and get to play a larger role in redistricting. This could end up helping Congressional Democrats get more seats in the US House from Texas and allow the State House and Senate to become all the more competitive. In the same vein, by ignoring Texas, the Biden campaign might help Texas Republicans hold their majority and pass through new maps that could reverse gains made by Texas Democrats in the state legislature.

    Collapse
  5. Joe1776

    Philosophy of Law

    Some discussion of general relationship of person to state. Could cover rights, and contract view, state of nature, Popular Soveriegnty etc. just briefly.

    Purpose of the law? Live moral lives? Prevent harm?

    The relation between Morality, Religion, and Law - consider Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail could be a great discussion piece.

    What is the constitution and what is the purpose of it. Stare decisis common law versus civil law.

    All would be good topics.

    Collapse
  6. Luke Thompson

    I would go a significant step further than David's theological position on the death penalty, which drives my position on the moral question as well.

    The covenant with Noah is still in effect and binding on mankind. The main element of the covenant on the human side is that we are required to execute murderers. God's statement in Genesis implies that to do otherwise is a rejection of the pro-life cause, since He will demand an accounting for lives that are taken and not avenged.

    As others have noted, we certainly have higher legal standards than the Israelites did, and they were clearly commanded to enforce the death penalty and did so. I think you have an extraordinary burden of proof that a system which executes as few people as ours today is so much less just than theirs that we should eliminate the death penalty entirely.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tracie

      Brings to mind a childhood memory of walking into the house of my maternal grandparents, confidently declaring (repeating) something I'd heard about "an eye for an eye", which has an appealing logic for a 9 year old.

      My Grandfather, who sat in his chair reading his zipper-cased Bible several hours a day, and almost never talked to me, said "Yes." and after what seemed like a long pause, added "But that's in the Old Testament." I waited for him to say something else, but he never did.

      Left an impression, which probably influenced how my thinking came out on the matter years later, long after I no longer regarded myself a Christian.

      How does vengeance, even "righteous" vengeance, square with Christian theology?

      Collapse
      1. Luke Thompson

        The covenant with Noah is in the Old Testament, yes, but it's also in the New Testament. Aside from the obvious (God's holding up His side of the bargain, after all), it's the reason that Christians are still prohibited from eating blood (Acts 15). There was no need for a statement at the Council of Jerusalem that executing murderers was still required. (They were, of course, more concerned with not being executed themselves.) The covenant that was superseded (for lack of a better term) is the one with Moses. We're saved through the covenant with Abraham (so we'd better hope that it's still binding), and the covenant with Noah will last until the Earth is destroyed.

        And there is no incompatibility at all between righteous vengeance and Christian theology. Jesus, after all, told the apostles to carry swords when they went out after His ascension. He even went so far as to say that they should sell their cloaks to buy one.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Tracie

          So, I hope I have the chronology right: Abraham, Moses, Noah. Christians are living in Noah's covenant? Jesus didn't have a covenant, cuz he was part of the Trinity? (Correct me. I have no idea?)

          That selling your cloak for a sword, I'm guessing that was a favorite of the medieval Crusaders?

          Collapse
          1. Luke Thompson

            Noah, Abraham, Moses.

            Noah's the one right after the flood. (Genesis 9) Abraham's the grandfather of Jacob, who would be renamed Israel. (Genesis 15 & 17) Moses comes about four hundred years later. (Exodus-Deuteronomy) Only the final one is superseded.

            Collapse
  7. Counterpoint

    Two quick additional points on the death penalty...

    1) I never want to miss an opportunity to direct people to this Vanity Fair piece by Christopher Hitchens, among the most impactful condemnations of US death penalty jurisprudence I have ever read:

    https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/1999/6/old-enough-to-die

    2) Would love to hear Sarah and David's views on an old case, Collins v Herrera. It is a decision that is somewhat complicated procedurally, but the part I'd like to hear from you two on is whether you concur with the court's assertion that executing a person who had received due process but was factually innocent is not unconstitutional. I find that to be a plausible but somewhat jarring conclusion.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Jenny

    Here is the thing with having a pod devoted to the Yellow Stone volcanos, dinosaurs, or other apocalyptic phenomena: listening to these topics is like watching a horror movie. This spring I tried to watch a show about the dinosaurs going extinct and had to turn it off because it was too scary. All of this stuff feels real now.

    If the two of you decide to cover such a topic, I'll probably listen...from under the covers.

    Collapse
  9. Teddy41

    I thought the UT versus UT segment was a real intellectual high point. Why discuss Madison, Mason, and the metaphysics of republican government when you can nitpick the differences between a group of fanatics in burnt orange and a group of fanatics in prison jump suit orange? (I kid...a little)
    In all seriousness I do love the podcast though. As someone who should have gone to law school (I read old law school textbooks for fun), but was never quite pulled together enough to manage it, you guys make me less embarrassed to let my legal nerd flag fly.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tracie

      Per TN vs TX, given the number of times the word "pardon" was said in this podcast, I think it's adorable that both hosts speak with hard 'R's. I've always assumed these entered the Texas accent via Kentucky and Tennessee.

      My set of grandparents who came via Savannah GA would have said "pahdon." The 'R's of my Texas grandparents clearly came from the hills.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Rev Snow

    Podcast episodes each centered around an interview with a subject matter expert sound appealing. The special Friday editions of The Dispatch Podcast have some of that flavor already.

    I would not put these under the Advisory Opinions umbrella though. Create a new Dispatch-produced podcast series. Call it "The Sources" and populate it with guests taken from the stable of experts that Dispatch staff consult when writing on topics where assistance is needed. Jonah's "Central Bank guy" comes to mind. Let each present what they wish the general public knew about their subject. Make it a lower frequency event, maybe once every two weeks or once every four weeks.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tracie

      I like the idea of expert guests, but it's a given they're going to discuss the news of the day as well.

      Collapse
Load More