Is Donald Trump ‘Absolutely Immune’?

Good faith beliefs and reasonable judgements.

By and
211

Sarah and David give listeners another action-filled pod, starting with a controversial abortion case in Texas before breaking down special counsel Jack Smith’s petition to the Supreme Court. Plus:

—Why justices aren’t doctors

—Texas’ abortion law is not working

—What does being pro-life mean?

—An extremely rare move by Jack Smith

—David’s (informed) rank speculation

—Is conversion therapy covered by the First Amendment?

—The number one movie of all time: Glory (1989)

—David discusses Nancy’s announcement

By and
Comments (211)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

    1. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

  2. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

    1. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

  3. Bi813

    Best wishes.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Roger.Wm.Bennett

    Not a comment on this or any other episode.

    I'd really enjoy hearing Sarah and David address the argument Ben Johnson made in the Atlantic Monday December 18: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo-supreme-court-questions/676353/

    He really got my attention.

    Collapse
  5. Hcreedlaw

    Apparently Sarah has written a children’s book about Hunter Biden: https://www.facebook.com/100063615518328/posts/pfbid0XrRD6SbgDt64C9ZkqErGT6twh1TVs7V1KdyzBs3QLiux6QfhGXKa82TpZZqpVRql/?mibextid=cr9u03

    (I couldn’t remember if the comment was on this one or the last episode and I can’t post a picture, but I promise this isn’t a weird spam post!)

    Collapse
  6. Bryan Dinner

    Sending love, prayers, and thoughts to you and Nancy, David. I hope that your consistent sense of selves that has helped me and many others to feel grounded in a confusing world give you strength and faith in these challenging times. It is unfair.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Anthonyjohnmartyr

    Obviously - Nancy, and David's whole family, are in our prayers. Breast cancer in its various forms touches so many lives, and it's a battle for everyone involved.

    While I take their point on the Texas law possibly being badly drafted (although I don't think they realise that, to a non-lawyer, it looks fine, and the insistence on micro-perfect drafting may be another example of the "abortion distortion"), and I acknowledge and agree with their distaste for Ken Paxton....I think the case itself is unfortunately a litmus test of whether you are actually pro-life, or not.

    And I appreciate that this is a hard call. I know both David & Sarah are making their case in good faith, based on experience and knowledge.

    Many will disagree with that, so let me explain a little. In practical terms, what they are arguing is the reason truly pro-life laws are very reluctant to give exceptions, and particularly ones where the doctors get the final decision. Because in every case (no exceptions that I can see), these type of laws degenerate into effective abortion on demand, where doctors conspire with mothers to end up driving a truck through the "eye-of-the-needle" exception the drafters tried to create.

    That type of law provides lots of cover for, "I'm pro-life, but..." and makes us all feel like we're still better than Planned Parenthood - but the end result is the same. Within a couple of years, even that Texas law, as written, would have doctors approving abortions on "the mental health risk to the mother" (I know - it happens here).

    I'm a man, so I lose every pregnancy argument with Sarah by default. My wife has had 5 pregnancies and no miscarriages (thank God) - but my mother had 7 children and 4 miscarriages. And was President of our local Right To Life organisation and she taught me this. In this case, Ken Paxton, odious though he may be, is right - the pregnancy in any other context would have been considered no unusual threat to the mother, and this is about the possible disability to the child. And I don't think the doctor was trying to make a clear statement - I think he was being deliberately disingenuous, on advice of lawyers.

    The number of abortions desired is grotesquely large, and genuine exceptions are by comparison tiny - that we spend so much time arguing about this tiny number of cases has always been one of the victories of the pro-abortion movement. So, the only "exception law" I would go along with was one that left it directly for our elected representatives - where (for example) the state Attorney General was the arbiter in all requested exceptions. Put them on the record - make them accountable and let the voters decide.

    I also then take on board David's entirely valid point (made previously) on "what do you want - absolute bans, or less abortions?" And I don't have a good answer to it - if accommodationist laws reduce number of abortions, but pure and absolute bans get rejected in favour of permissive regimes that increase abortions, which is a more desirable moral right? Still wrestling with that - but haven't seen many legal arrangements that allow a little bit of child porn to reduce the frequency....

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Marc Frischhertz

      “Because in every case (no exceptions that I can see), these type of laws degenerate into effective abortion on demand, where doctors conspire with mothers to end up driving a truck through the "eye-of-the-needle" exception the drafters tried to create.”

      I don’t necessarily agree with your statement, but this is the result of poorly drafted laws that are the result of an attempt to hide the true intent of those drafting them. There are easy ways to draft laws that would prevent these problems, but just like immigration, there is no desire to solve anything, just preserve the issue.

      Additionally, all laws are subject to potential abuse by bad faith actors. The question is, in the zeal to prevent bad faith actors, how many good faith actors are you willing to accept being caught in the net?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Anthonyjohnmartyr

        Could be - very hard to demonstrate the negative that it's not possible to write such laws. Only the seeming lack of them on the books anywhere. Do you have some examples?

        The bad actor/good actor question is a good one to consider. My initial instinct is the "innocent until proven guilty" rule. But who gets the benefit of the doubt - mum or baby? I think it has to be the voiceless, defenceless baby - but that's a discussion to have.

        That's another reason I support the "Attorney General decision model" - nothing concealed, everything clear and on the table, like the death penalty.

        Collapse
  8. Logansaunders12

    David and/or Sarah. I wanted to propose that you all consider evaluating that recently published book Reforming Criminal Justice: A Christian Proposal, by Matthew T. Martens. Though his book takes a Christian angle as the title suggests, I’d still be interested in both of your thoughts on some of his proposals and evaluations of the criminal justice system, and maybe even considering having him on your podcast. It’s a book that no matter one’s personal beliefs I think has to be taken seriously and I found it to be incredibly readable even though I’m not trained in the Law in any way. Anyway, just a thought. Thanks for considering!

    Collapse
  9. Andrew.Wimer

    Definitely praying for Nancy and your family. Please keep us all updated and ways we can specifically pray.

    The Supreme Court is quickly going to have another opportunity to deal with whether talk therapy is protected speech and the facts in the case are a lot less controversial. Elizabeth Brokamp is a licensed counselor who switched to doing online therapy during COVID. But she quickly ran into a problem. She's in Northern Virginia but many of her patients were from the District of Columbia. While it was legal for them to drive to VA for therapy, it was illegal for them to do the same therapy online.

    She sued with the Institute for Justice and her lawsuit overcame the motion to dismiss and it headed to summary judgment.

    At the same time, she was able to keep seeing a patient who had moved to New York because of a COVID exception for online therapy. When that exception ended, she had to stop seeing the patient. She launched a lawsuit against New York with nearly identical claims. But there she lost at the district and appeals courts. On January 5, the Supreme Court will consider her case in conference. More on it here: https://ij.org/case/new-york-teletherapy/.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Amy

    David,
    I am no longer on Twitter, so I missed Nancy's announcement. Please convey to Nancy my tearful shock at this news followed by the comforting thought that such a true and faithful servant of our Lord is surely being watched over.

    This past year I was told I had kidney cancer. I shared this with several of the Dispatch Discord members. I was blessed by the support and prayers offered. After my surgery, the news came back that I am one of the lucky ones--my tumor was benign! I tell you this to say that I know from experience that our Dispatch community are mighty prayer warriors.

    Y'all got this.
    Nancy's Twitter posts are one of the only things I miss about that site!

    -Amy "Scarlett_Says" Davis

    Collapse
Load More