Death Penalty Distortion

The Supreme Court on Thursday granted Alabama death row inmate Willie Smith’s request to have ...

By
43

The Supreme Court on Thursday granted Alabama death row inmate Willie Smith’s request to have his pastor present at his execution, rejecting the state’s claim that having a spiritual adviser present interferes with prison security. Tune in to hear how the Supreme Court’s religious liberty ruling in Dunn v. Smith might affect future death penalty cases. On today’s episode, our hosts also chat about Yuval Levin’s latest piece in National Review on the sorry state of Congress and the New York Times’ 2020 Hulu documentary about Britney Spears.

Show Notes:

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
By
Comments (43)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Barb B

    I have to ask-if a pastor is not allowed in the execution room because the warden doesn’t find him trustworthy, why is the prisoner allowed in the room????

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    David V

    David and Sarah, I was super-excited when you guys started talking about the Committee on Social Thought. Back in the late '80s, I was a U of C undergrad and my major was basically the junior version of Committee on Social Thought. It was called "Fundamentals: Issues and Texts" -- which goes along with the "fundamental issues" mentioned in the blurb you read about them. It was very much a U of C thing -- ask a question that you deem fundamental to human existence and then spend the rest of your undergrad time trying to answer it with the help of various great books. Fun times...

    Collapse
    1. Dan Currell

      Doubling onto this - David or Sarah, or maybe both, may have a copy of The Founders' Constitution. That was edited by Kurland and Lerner. Kurland was at the Law School, but Lerner was - and is still, emeritus - at the Committee on Social Thought. I was at the law school after Kurland had passed, but had a seminar with Lerner on Maimonides - one of his scholarly interests. The learning represented by CST faculty is vast - Yuval Levin is a worthy representative.

      If anyone doesn't have a copy of The Founders' Constitution, perhaps having been deterred by the $400 price tag from UChicago Press, Liberty Fund now does a lovely soft-cover (but sewn binding) five-volume version for $70.

      https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Constitution-5-Set/dp/0865972796/ref=pd_lpo_14_t_0/132-7502743-1406614?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0865972796&pd_rd_r=b4bbdbbf-9838-468e-b77f-628d0a9f9f31&pd_rd_w=pm5dO&pd_rd_wg=HPIBg&pf_rd_p=16b28406-aa34-451d-8a2e-b3930ada000c&pf_rd_r=Z96ASSDMPCVE8GHJNCCH&psc=1&refRID=Z96ASSDMPCVE8GHJNCCH

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    PSM

    Regarding the timing of Christmas trees: A bit of Originalism.

    The Christmas tree tradition, when it began in Germany, involved parents and grandparents decorating the tree prior, to be revealed to the Children on Christmas Eve. (As I understand it).

    The tree was then kept up through all 12 days of Christmas, to Epiphany. This is also a suitable time frame for a live tree.

    However, given the logistics of cutting down and setting up the tree, as well as the good that comes from children helping in the decorating, a one week extension prior to Christmas is suitable.

    Thus, the proper time frame for a Christmas tree is 18 December through 6 January. Putting the tree up right after Thanksgiving invades upon Advent. It's a Christmas tree, not an Advent tree. Advent gets a wreath and candles in windows. Taking the tree down on New Years means you are taking it down halfway through the Christmas holiday.

    (Also, the tree should be a real tree, cut down by the family, but that's a rant for another day.)

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Jon Bayerlein

    This is a bit off topic but does involve religious liberty. I always wondered why gay marriage proponents didn’t pursue legalization in the courts by pressing the issue of religious liberty for gay Americans. Many Christian denominations marry gay couples and marriage is a sacrament for many of them. Wouldn’t denying gay marriages of those couples result in a situation where the government was violating their first amendment expression rights? They’d be denying them access to a religious sacrament. Anyway, curious if anyone else has thought of it that way?

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Alexa Mouser

    I always thought that "the Presidents'" of Presidents' Day were Washington and Lincoln, b/c their birthdays are both in February? I never thought Presidents' Day was a day to celebrate all Presidents or the Executive Branch, in general. (Cause, gross.) Just putting that out there.

    Collapse
  6. Christina

    Hey Sarah and David, love listening to you both and enjoyed this episode in particular. If you and your listeners would like to learn about a group working to make Congress great again (yes, that’s their motto), I’d encourage you to check out LegBranch.org.

    Collapse
  7. DRHanson

    I worked as a legislative staffer for my state's Senate and then served 16 years as an elected member of our House, so I was interested in the brief discussion of Yuval Levin's proposal to dramatically increase the size of the U.S. House. As I recall Jonah has advocated the same thing, and both of them believe it would make the House a less partisan and leader-controlled body. However, based on my experience in my own state and observation of other legislatures, I believe Sarah is right and Jonah is wrong on this point. In my opinion, significantly increasing the size of a legislative body is likely to make that body more partisan, strengthen the power of party leaders, and make individual rank-and-file members even less meaningful than they are now. Smaller districts will, on balance, tend to make districts more homogeneous in terms of interests and even less likely to be competitive between the parties; both of those outcomes will tend to make it more difficult for members to support compromises.

    Collapse
  8. DRHanson

    On the question of what to name an organization dedicated to restoring Congress to its proper Constitutional role, the Daniel Webster society suggested in the podcast isn't a bad idea. Webster was one of the founders of the Whig Party that opposed the growth of presidential power and believed Congress should take the lead on policy decisions. But another Whig founder would be a better choice: Henry Clay. He believed in Congressional primacy and turned the office of Speaker of the House into a powerful position. And if one of the goals of this hypothetical organization would be to turn Congress back into an institution that works out mutually agreeable accommodations between diverse viewpoints and interests, I think there's no better choice than the guy who earned the nickname "The Great Compromiser."

    Collapse
  9. BrianMA

    To David's point of conservative courts riding in to the rescue on Congress's role, that is treating a symptom rather than a problem. You cannot make Congress do things through reviving the non-delegation doctrine because Congress does not want to do anything. And if the court kills Chevron, Congress will just make new delegations of power that are more clearly worded. There needs to be reform in the political class with leaders who are actually interested in doing things themselves - I like the idea of a Webster Society. Restore a functioning legislature!

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    BWG

    David and Sarah, I very much enjoy the meat of these AO podcasts, and I really appreciate you sharing your expertise on these important and timely legal issues. So it's in a spirit of constructive criticism I ask .... can ya tighten it up a bit? Seems like you often take 5 or 10 or 20 sentences to say what could be said in 2 or 3 - is that an attorney thing? The analogous worked well for Keith Moon and rock and roll (why hit one drum when 10 will do?) but not so much for a legal podcast. Again, I really enjoy the legal meat, and I really appreciate you two enlightening me with your expertise, but there's only so much time in the day! We'll see in the responses to this comment if I'm alone on this, if so, I'll never mention it again....

    Collapse
    1. BrianMA

      Why rush it? I enjoy the fact that the conversation feels like friends talking about big issues rather than a moderated discussion.

      Collapse
Load More